Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/09/2025 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York January 9, 2025 9:38 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN—Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Vice Chair/Member MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Organizational Meeting 3 - 12 George and Sara Spahidakis#7933SE 13 - 16 George and Sara Spahidakis#7977 13 - 16 Brian and Shari Nerreau #7971 16- 28 Steven and Kim Sweeney#7974 28- 38 Donald J. Schneider and Pamela E. Schneider#7972 38-42 I.V.N.N., LLC#7973 42-46 Vicky Papson,Trustee of Vicky Papson #7979 46- 52 Stritzler Trust#7975 53—54, & 68-79 Timothy P. and Charene G. Murray (Stork) #7976 54- 64 Carla Sciara and Lester Hilbert#7978 64-68 North Road Hotel, LLC, Hotel Moraine#7927SE 79 North Road Hotel, LLC, Hotel Moraine#7953 79 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to open the Organizational Meeting of the Board of Appeals for January 9th. We're going to begin with a review of the three documents that we have kind of our working guidelines, let's start with the ZBA Procedural Guidelines. I just had some questions here;the thing that I wanted to question is this whole business of the timing of submitting drafts which is under draft findings, but we sort of discussed that and I think is everybody comfortable with leaving it the way it is just trying to get it in within six days after the public hearing? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything I'm assuming everybody has read them again, is there anything in those guidelines that anyone would like to discuss or correct or edit in any way? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to adopt as written the ZBA Procedural Guidelines for 2025. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may just a quick question for Margaret. Did you have to sign the big book the other day at the Town Clerk's Office? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She was sworn in. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was sworn in but I did not sign a large book. I signed a piece of paper, it got entered into MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh cause there's like this historic book it's a fun thing to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's like falling apart, and it's like this big and there's probably no more pages left in it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It reminds me of that poem about the book of people qualified to be attendant of his majesty. I was going to bring the family Bible but. January 9,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ZBA Guidelines to Open Meetings Law and Ethical Issues. MEMBER STEINBUGLER I had one comment on that one, in the very first paragraph, introductions third line it talks about intended to supplement and further clarify the responsibilities and ethical standards proscribed for Zoning Boards. I think it means prescribed. I looked up proscribed, proscribe means to be (inaudible) or banned. If someone could just look it up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll just change it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : On the second page, item four, ethical issues involved with and or violations of the Open Meetings Law. I wonder if that first bullet needs to have a qualifier like, these applications will not be discussed between Board Members when a quorum or participating other than in a you know I don't know what the right word is but an open or public meeting. In other words, it would as written it would seem to prevent us from ever having a meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what that's saying is that we can't discuss including in emails among ourselves when a quorum among three of us let's say unless we're in an open meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, I think that the part is missing is, unless you're in an open meeting. I don't see that exception, maybe it should just be clarified. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, between Board Members when a quorum, three members or more of-the members are participating unless MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Unless in an open meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : an open meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : or executive session. BOARD ASSISTANT : What number was that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four, bullet one. It's always good to get a fresh pair of eyes on anything because you know you look at these year, after year, after year and they just kind of you know get glazed over. Is there anything else on that one from anybody? Okay, motion to readopt as corrected, as amended. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN All in favor? January 9,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now, Code of Conduct. I think because Margaret is here, maybe a couple of parts of this are worth us reminding ourselves together about that particularly I think on the second page how to really participate at Public Hearings. I think the main thing is, we've gotta really refrain from expressing personal views about something. We need to remain open to mostly listening. Where it is appropriate to express a personal view is if we have specific familiarity as a resident of the town that is relevant but mostly your opinion is not relevant and the burden is always with the applicant. We cannot be saying, well think it's okay, or your property is really unique and it's you know it doesn't apply to anybody else we can't be doing that at a hearing. The burden relies solely with the applicant to make their case before the Board. If they're not prepared to do it, we should adjourn it and basically say you need to do some more homework, you need to hire counsel. The one time mean you've seen me do this many, many times, often applicants and even the attorneys forget to enter into the record what the relief requested actually is that's no big deal. I'm just quoting from the Notice of Disapproval that's all, it's not an opinion that's just simply a statement of fact. Sometimes if someone is representing themselves and they just don't know how to proceed it's appropriate then to say well, what is your back yard facing and they'll say an open field you know what I mean. So, you can do those kinds of questions but really, we've gotta be very, very careful about voicing personal opinions about applications. The other thing which sometimes I'm guilty of, expressing opinions about codes you don't like. You have to keep those before the Code Committee and the Town Board and not in this court room. Is there anything else here, oh we all really know that we can't talk about these applications even after they're closed because of the litigation potential,thirty days for them to litigate MEMBER LEHNERT : Or the press. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and they do so we have to very aware of that. I think this is pretty self-explanatory. Anybody else have anything? Okay, motion to adopt as written. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? S January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now we will move on to I reviewed the templates, we updated I guess the variance one the de minimus text in October of last year and we did correct the IA system thing and we did correct something else. I think we're alright for now unless you see anything that I don't see about these. MEMBER LEHNERT: Correct them as we go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we really do, I mean that's the only way to do it, if you see something MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a few typos but you know it's nothing of substance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so then I'm going to make a motion to readopt all the templates as written. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now we have the oh the meeting dates, Rob you were having you wanted to see if we can move the fourth of July thing. MEMBER LEHNERT : To get it out of the fourth of July week, if we can. If it doesn't work it doesn't work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have an extra week in July. MEMBER LEHNERT : We do have an extra week in July. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you got a lot of work that week. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's the craziest week of the year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who has a calendar? MEMBER LEHNERT: If we bump it to the 10th that gives us the 24th for the Special and another two weeks until the 7th of August when it would be our next hearing. BOARD ASSISTANT : So the Special would be the 24tn. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes and the hearing date would be the 10th. If we can do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : July hold on I'm looking at June. We had to change the Special because of the holiday.July 3rd you want to change it to what? MEMBER LEHNERT: 10tn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 and then July 17th to what? MEMBER LEHNERT : 24th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We should be able to do that. I mean there are alternative meeting places, if we can't get the meeting hall, we can meet in the Annex in the bank room or whatever. Okay so we want to do that? Kim, can you look into the reservation for us? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So as of right now we're not changing it we're waiting for confirmation of space? MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct again, if it can't be done it can't be done but if it can that would help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to appoint I've asked Nick if he would be willing to serve as Vice Chair of the Board for another year and he said he would so I will be appointing him officially as of today. So far, I haven't (inaudible) but Nick is like me around the corner and could sign decisions in my absence if I was away or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea I think you were in England last year for the Special Meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My vacation for years has always been around Zoning Board, my Viking cruises have been around Zoning Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's the best thing,just plan your calendar. 7 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Work Session, this is boiler plate but it's good to always ask if there's anything any Board Member wants to put on the agenda for the future for Work Session for general discussion. Usually there isn't anything but you certainly if you think of anything between you know now and when Kim sends me an Agenda, they're basically the Legal Notices you know the hearings and stuff and SEQRA and then when extensions and requests for de minimus come in, we add those on as Resolutions toward the end but certainly we're always open to talk about anything that anybody has an interest in talking about so keep that in mind. The de minimus request and extension request that are on here, I think you all go information on that via email, right? We can discuss some of them. The first one, the Bartur that's you know a timely one, that's just the allowed extension right. Shipman that's the amended decision which we've already looked at and Bill Livanos, this thing expired I mean this is almost nine years ago, like eight and a half years. That's simply negligence, it's right in the decision and you know we do have some times we will grant an extension even if it's beyond the six years if the C.O. is pending and it's like a month or two or three, we have the authority to do that but beyond that that's just not going to fly. I mean there's no point in having laws you know if that blatantly disregard it, we cannot support that kind of behavior. So, when we get to it we'll you know you'll vote yes or no according MEMBER LEHNERT : Also so far past the expiration date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I said if it's a little bit past the six years that's another story; sometimes they get held up by the Department of Health or by the Building Department or whatever. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if this is the right place to discuss right now but aren't they just waiting on a C of 0 like they need to install handrails and then they're done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is like a really bad judgment call because I think the code and the law would say, you need to go back to the beginning things may have changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well nine years later I think maybe we need to look at the property again. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Exactly MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This seems also potentially a waste of time though if nothing has changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I shouldn't say waste of time but a bad use of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The public needs to understand these laws are in place for a reason. I mean it was only when I started screaming at the Town Board over the fact that these variances run with the land and people were putting swimming pools you know when they were ten, fifteen feet from a bluff and the bluff eroded. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Old decisions that don't expire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At least now they expire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was no expiration on anything and that made absolutely no sense. So,that was corrected in 20111 think it was I don't remember. BOARD ASSISTANT FUENTES : 2015 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In any case, this is the point, this has been a very long time and at the very least they're going to have to go through the process even if it's proforma. The Building Department can do what it wants, if they want to issue the C.O., they'll issue it but don't feel that it's appropriate for us to be a part of approving that is something that far out it just doesn't make any sense. I don't have anything else. I'm going to open up the meeting. The first hearing is not till ten but we might as well open up the meeting and do the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm formally opening up the meeting of the Board of Appeals for the public hearing portion. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you everybody. I'm going to go to the Resolutions to get those over with because we have to wait till 10 o'clock for the first hearing. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with,public hearings to be held Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 9:00 am, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye 9. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held December 19, 2024 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension to #7593 this is Bar- Tur on Bay Lane in Orient. Extension from February 17, 2025 to expire February 17, 2026 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant an amended decision, No. 7967 Jennifer Shipman 2184 Elijah's Lane in Mattituck. You've all reviewed that correct? Okay, so there's a motion to accept the amended decision, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye to January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to extend determination No. 6965 Bill Livanos at 7990 Summit Dr. in Mattituck. I'm going to poll the Board on this one because this expired almost nine years ago so I'm going to is there a second on the Resolution well first of all I'm going to have to get a vote. I'm going to vote nay on this determination. I'm going to poll the Board, Margaret. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Nay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay motion fails. That determination to extend is denied. I guess we have to wait to adjourn the North Road Hotel until the time it's posted in case somebody shows up or is on Zoom so we'll leave that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm recused from the first application so I'm going to just excuse myself right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, actually you know what I can do this though. The Silver Sands and the MDC Trust. I'm going to make a motion to at the applicant's request the motion from Silver Sands Holdings I LLC is to accept the withdrawal from the applicant for this application. Is there'a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm recused. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. MDC Trust I'm going to make a motion to table this to January 23, 2025 so we'll have time to prepare a determination. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Liz, can you instruct anyone that is on Zoom how they can participate if they wish to? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Sure, we have three on with us. Thank you, Leslie, good morning, everyone. For those with us on Zoom, if you would like to make a comment on a particular application, I ask that you raise your hand. I will see that your hand is up and I will give you instructions, I will move you in and give you instructions on how to participate. If you are using a phone which I don't think anyone is but I'll go over it, it's *9 to raise your hand and then I will let you know what to do next.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Before we get to the hearings, I'm going to read the SEAR determinations. Therese are new applications a Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following : Spahidakis #7933SE, Spahidakis #7977, Nerreau #7971, Sweeney#7974, Schneider#7972, IM.N.N., LLC#7973, Papson #7972, Stritzler Family Trust#7975, Stork#7976 and Carla Sciara and Lester Hilbert#7978 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye January 9,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm going to recuse myself, I'm going out to the hall. If anyone needs me someone can call me. HEARING#7933SE &7977 -GEORGE and SARA SPAHIDAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for George and Sara Spahidakis #7933SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280- 13B(13). The applicants are the owners of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing.accessory structure at 1235 Wunneweta.Rd. in Cutchogue. There's another application, I'm going to open them up at the same time. This is for Spahidakis also, #7977. This is a request from Article XXIII Section 280-122 and the Building Inspector's September 20, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" alterations to an existing "as built" accessory apartment in an accessory building and to construct a deck addition to the existing accessory building at 1) alterations and additions to a non-conforming building containing a conforming use creates a new non-conformance or increase in the degree of non-conformity also located at 1235 Wunneweta Rd. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? Would you state your name please? GEORGE SPAHIDAKIS : I'm George Spahidakis good morning all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so, two applications, I understand that there was a Stop Work Order put on this application at one point, no building permit, 9/13/24? GEORGE SPAHIDAKIS : Actually there was a building permit that was dropped for the pool and he noticed that the pool fencing whoever came by and I wasn't there, the pool fencing was dropped and the debris the dirt on the side was rolling so I went to the Building Board (inaudible) raised the I was in the process of the permits. He said raise it four feet around the pool cause we haven't put a fence up yet and put jute mesh on the hill so it can contain the dirt and that was done.There was no after that the Building Inspector came by and I guess he okayed it by himself. He never told me anything.The house was just painted you know basic it wasn't the house was'just freshened up. We just bought the house last year and we noticed that there was an accessory apartment above the garage which I was told you have to file for 131 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting legalization yearly. You saw a staircase in the middle of the garage which is rather steep so I said wouldn't it be great my architect and I said wouldn't it be great if we pulled it,on the outside; I have a mother-in-law who is seventy-nine and she's going to be she's ready for a wheelchair she's fighting it but and I was thinking of putting a chair on the outside going up to a platform. A platform that she would access the top so that's hence the platform on top. The staircase to the platform where she could get, we're going to have an entrance to get into the house that way. So, she doesn't have to like she can't get through she can't even climb it now, I think you were there and saw the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea a number of us were there, GEORGE SPAHIDAKIS : I'm going to charge her as a tenant I'm going to charge her five dollars a month. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have in the record just so the record reflects the fact that we have a lease included, Adele Deminges is that correct? GEORGE SPAHIDAKIS :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You bought that with prior ZBA approval for an accessory apartment but because we have to verify who is going to be the occupant you'd have to come back the new owner has to come back and be recertified. This was ZBA No. Special Exception 7036. As you know it's not transferable. We have your Optimum bills, PSEG bills, drivers' licenses, confirmation from the Building Department of the conforming livable floor area of the apartment at 551 sq.ft. Is there anything the Board wants to ask about this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience want to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? KEN O'BRIEN : Hi, my name is Ken O'Brien I'm a neighbor at 1020 Vanston. I think one of the question has been answered which is, the intent of use. I along with neighbors you know (inaudible) of the North Fork want to ensure that it's not used as a rental property and I think that that has been answered. Is everybody comfortable with that position at this point? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea KEN O'BRIEN : Okay, I do want to raise one concern regarding the debris on the property. I sit on the Board of Nassau Point and I do know that one of the Board Members brought the attention the Director of Highways for the Town of Southold about the debris basically falling off the hill, the runoff down the hill into the street which presents a problem for the storm 14 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting drains which being on the Board I can tell you is one of the priorities we focused on along with a variety of issues in Nassau Point. Since that large pile of dirt was contained with sort of this burlap mesh another smaller pile of dirt has appeared just adjacent to the first pile. I guess my question you know is, why is the debris material being placed in such a position where it's actually spilling off into the road and if the town had informed the owner of the first mound why is the second mound not being contained? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir, that's not the jurisdiction of this Board it's Storm Water Management. Chapter 235 and 236 and the Building Department and Code Enforcement and the Town Engineer have jurisdiction over that. I would suggest that you direct your questions either to your neighbor or to the Building Department unless the applicant is about to answer your question. GEORGE SPAHIDAKIS : Yes, thank you Mr. O'Brien for your concern. The asphalt in the driveway was dug out so that we can install dry wells for the water drainage. This Saturday we're just bidding out the work for the landscaping and everything is going to be leveled out, paved, we're going to do trees, we're going to do brick work. It was just a matter of time, forgive me for the mess it's been a long time but we just had to finish the exterior of the home first and now we're going to tackle the dirt and everything will,be clean. The landscape will be benefitting Nassau Point. We don't plan on doing anything to be loud or obnoxious, we love the nature and we will preserve it. KEN O'BRIEN : Okay, I guess what I hearing is that the debris will be removed because it's a little unusual that the debris will be left behind and a second you know pile of dirt will be left at such a high elevation that it's actually bleeding down into Vanston Rd. which you know as a resident I can see regularly. What I'm hearing you say is that it will be taken care of and with respect to the Board, I do realize that this is this may feel mutually exclusive but I think is part of an approval process for an apartment. One needs to look holistically at the project that's underway to evaluate really the soundness of it. So, I completely support having a mother-in- law living in an apartment I can understand that but I do want raise and make it a matter of record that you know that it needs to be done in a neighborly fashion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we recognize your comments and appreciate your concerns and I'm sure they're going to be addressed in the long run.Thank you for your comments. MEMBER LEHNERT : Building Department is going to make him contain his water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, I mean you know in order for him to get a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department that is going to have to be addressed so it will be addressed one way or the other. Okay, there's also a variance for this application, the deck January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting addition that you've described which then creates new non-conformance to this is an approved use (inaudible) non-conforming building. I think you've explained it already in terms of what you're doing. It isn't a setback issue, it's just simply alterations to the exterior of the building and because it's an accessory building which this is now before us. I don't have any questions about that, you've already answered the reason for doing it. Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat or Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Anybody in the audience? Motion to close the hearings reserve decision to a later date on#7933SE and #7977. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,thank you for your time. HEARING#7971—BRIAN and SHARI NERREAU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Brian and Shari Nerreau #7971. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 7, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single- family dwelling and to legalize "as built" conversion of a pre-existing seasonal cottage to a year round dwelling at 1) altered cottage constitutes a non-permitted second dwelling on a lot, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 705 Wood Lane (adj.to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Good morning,. I'm Joan Chambers, Southold, New York and I'm representing Shari and Brian who joined us today. There's two things going on so I'm just going to read my little quick brief here so I don't get them confused. Town records are incomplete concerning the origins of the building. I'm referring to the second residence on the property. I did find a sketch on a building permit application dated,July 23, 1965. It shows a building between a house that's on Richmond Creek and the garage that's on Wood Lane and it's labeled a sleeping house. This confirms with others in the neighborhood say, we got several letters from the neighbors, I'm going to hand in here that they say this house has always been there. The permit application was found in the Zoning Board application 789 which granted the owners the right to erect a detached garage in the front yard and it's included in the application packages attachments. The house on Richmond Creek existed prior to 1959 because building permit 611 was issued on March 24, 1959 for alterations to an existing dwelling, this is also included as an attachment. There were alterations and additions made to the house on Richmond Creek which are covered under building permit 3032 which is included. The final documentation of this building is from a site plan dated February 24, 2010 which was included in application to Southold Town Trustees for the bulkhead replacement and on that site plan the building is described as a one-story framed house. All this is to say that this building has been included in the character of the neighborhood for at least sixty years and the current owners have now taken upon themselves to legalize all the existing structures and bring them into compliance to the best of our abilities. Then, the house I looked at the digital file for seventeen properties in the neighborhood and every four of them have been granted variances for property line setbacks that do not meet code requirements. A lot of the buildings built in that neighborhood are built sixty to seventy years ago and many of the lots are like the Nerreau's property less than 75 feet wide making it likely that the older houses were not sited with current setback requirements in mind. The existing house was built prior to 1959 and it was placed about twenty feet from the side yard property line to the west, there's a C.O. and building permit attesting to this. The addition was permitted and received a C. 0. in 1968 and on the hand drawn sketch included with the permit application. It shows the side yard property line as only 12 feet which must have been acceptable to the Building Department at the time. Really, we're dealing with two things, we're dealing with an old sleeping house that has been fixed up by all the various owners since 1950's and now is a pretty nice house and we're dealing with the house that's up on the water which is too close to the property line. I put in applications for all of these buildings and I had John Jarski go to the property with me and he issued a permit for the garage so that's fine. He looked at the cottage we'll call it the secondary house and said you're going to have to go talk to the Zoning Board about this one. Then he looked at the main house and it was him that determined that he thinks an addition was put on at some point without a permit :171 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting and that's where it got too close to the 12 feet. I kind of disagreed with him because I found a permit for that but nevertheless it's only 12 feet from the property line so we're going CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's for the principle dwelling? JOAN CHAMBERS :The principle dwelling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : According to the notice it's 12.4 feet and the code requires a minimum of 15 feet. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes minimum of 15. 1 also have a couple of letters by the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure bring those up. JOAN CHAMBERS : Those are the neighbors immediately to either side of the property and both of them are in favor of the variance application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a Pre C.O. on anything here? JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't believe there's any Pre C.O's, that's sort of what I was trying to look for. The Nerreau's plan to put a second floor on the main residence up by the water. When I started interacting with the Building Department showing them site plans, they were the ones that pointed out that we didn't have valid C.O.'s on the cottage and the garage either at that point.That permit has been issued so that one seems to be not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had a question about this survey, over in the application it says the side yard setback is 2.7 feet, I bet that must be a typo or something. JOAN CHAMBERS : No that's the cottage, the cottage is actually that close to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh, okay so that's for the cottage.This is for the principal dwelling. JOAN CHAMBERS : That's the principal dwelling and that sort of rectangle that's on the landward side of the house is what John Jarski determined he thinks that's been an addition at some point. I actually found an application and a permit for that addition; they didn't seem to care that it was 12 feet from the property line. Also, the porch would have probably been an open porch on the waterside has been converted to livable space too. I did a whole "as built" application to the Building Department for that one although the only reason we had to come before you were for that 12-foot setback. is January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the setbacks are the structures are where they are, they're been there a very, very long time and it's most likely that certainly the cottage pre-dates zoning. JOAN CHAMBERS : Exactly, you can see that section of flat roof on the lower right hand yeah the one that the arrow is at the lower right hand, that's the porch that's on the left side and that's the addition is on the right side. I tried to sort of give you some (inaudible) so it's probably just a little gable cottage at some point but it expanded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the square footage of the cottage, we'll call it the cottage. JOAN CHAMBERS : Hang on a second, I have to pull out a site plan here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie when you're speaking of cottage you mean the residence? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The second dwelling I'm calling it, I'm going to call it a cottage just to make it clear even though it's a habitable year round JOAN CHAMBERS : On my site plan that I was working with the Building Department on, we've got the mini residence is 1,273 and the existing cottage what I was calling is 955. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, that's what I thought I just wanted it in the record because that would constitute a code definition of a dwelling. It's too big to be considered a cottage or apartment. JOAN CHAMBERS : It just seemed presumptuous of me to call it the second dwelling so I've been calling it the cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It also just clarifies things. JOAN CHAMBERS : The other thing that I should bring up is that, one of the very first things we did was put in an application to the Suffolk County Board of Health to put in a new septic system and they insisted that we only put in one for the two residences. They don't want to see two septic systems on properties anymore and that has basically been accepted but it's pending paperwork from Trustees and D.E.C. which we haven't moved forward with those we were waiting to finish with you first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that going to be an IA system? JOAN CHAMBERS : It's going to be an IA and it's going to be well over a hundred feet away from the water, basically between the two buildings. :11 9 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This presents a conundrum because the fact that there is a second dwelling on one lot is not an area variance, it's a non-permitted use. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the problem is, do you address Use Variance standards in that case or how do we handle this? JOAN CHAMBERS : That's the question. When I first put the application in, I don't have the answer to this, I realized it's a unique situation probably not unique there's probably other properties in Southold where the you know the sleeping cabin has turned into a home. In the Nerreau's defense they use it for their adult children on occasion, it's not a rental property, it's not a second family living on the property and they don't have any problem with those restrictions being placed on it. It is not to be rented, it's to be used for family use only. I went back and forth actually with Kim when I put this application in to do an area application or a Use application and basically took her advice and did an Area application. As I said, we're just hoping that you can see that this is a unique situation and you know we really just don't know quite what to do with this building but it has been there for a long time, we're just caught in the act of trying to make it legal so that we can move forward with other projects on the property without you know stopping everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood T. A. MCGIVNEY : Just going back to (inaudible) something like this I'm kind of surprised that you would take the advice of a person working in the office because I'm not quite sure that they would advise you of anything. Sometimes they try to assist you but you know and this is kind of a problem people come in and have questions but it's really you know so and if Kim did speak to you about it she may have come to our office, I don't recall specifically but for that reason it still is a Use Variance being a second dwelling. I know you had said that they want to use it for family I mean on the application it says that they're converting it from seasonal to year-round but in your attachments the difficulty, self-alleged says that they're just going to use it seasonally. So, is it going to be a full time dwelling or? JOAN CHAMBERS : No it's going to be just used for family seasonally. The problem is just cause it's just going to be the summer season they use it in the winter too so it's not like we can take the heat out of it and just call it a true seasonal cottage because it is used over the holidays and the winter.As I said it's not a second family being proposed on this property and certainly not being proposed as a rental property. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The clients bought in 2021? Z January 9,2025 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes T. A. MCGIVNEY : If you would like it's an opportunity to address the Use Variance standards you can do that otherwise I'm not quite sure that you've met your burden of the application that you've provided. JOAN CHAMBERS : So you're saying that you want me to put in a Use Variance application? T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's a second dwelling, it's not permitted and any alterations that were done to it even you can further clarify that. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're all saying it, it kind of falls in between the cracks that's part of the problem. Typically, a Use Variance is going to be saying put this is a residential use which is permitted in that zone. A Use Variance is typically you know I want to put a gas station in a residential zone, it's a non-permitted use in that zone district. This use is permitted in that zone district but only one dwelling per property is permitted so it kind of falls in between are you following what I'm saying here? It kind of falls between a whole bunch of different cracks and it's not Joan's right, it's not the first time we've seen this in town. This was not a terribly uncommon practice many, many, many years ago. People built you know second like cottages on a lot for their family or whatever and MEBMER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie to that point I'm trying to understand myself the application the series of Certificate of Occupancy along with what the applicant can and can't do. So, I'll just recite the C. O.'s existing chronologically, No. 611Z is for an alteration in 1959 we have no idea what that was. No. 756Z is for a one-family summer dwelling, we don't know which structure that is. No. 3032Z in 1968 is for private one-family dwelling, it would sort of to me I would interpret that as being perhaps the conversion of most of these homes on the creek were all seasonal summer residences so that might have been the conversion. Then No. 3694 in 1967 was an addition to a dwelling, we don't know what but I suppose it was the waterfront dwelling/structure and then there's an open building permit. So, as I see the C of O's whether the structure the barn, shed whatever that accessory was may have just even been a structure without a C of 0, it had nothing to do with the dwelling or the summer dwelling. The next question I would ask and we don't know what that structure is but isn't the applicant entitled to have a compliant accessory apartment for a family member if they want to take an existing structure and that structure exists, we don't know if it's a seasonal dwelling or what can't they apply to have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but there are size limits Z?L January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so they would have to scale it back with storage and other things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea T. A. MCGIVNEY : So having done the alterations MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It took away the C.O. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Well it also now does it make it something that was legalized for at least three years? JOAN CHAMBERS : I'm not following what you're saying. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm saying if the accessory building if it you scaled it back it would more something that you could call it an accessory apartment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you're entitled to two bedrooms and a bathroom. JOAN CHAMBERS : Which we have two bedrooms and a bathroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the square footage is too great. T. A. MCGIVNEY : and because they did the alterations to it now it's not a building that has a legal Certificate of Occupancy for at least three years. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct, I follow that. MEMER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me one second, Julie along that train of thought which I sort of started, thank you for kind of clarifying, if this building and I don't know the history of the C. of O's which it doesn't specifically say which C. of 0. is for which structure on the property; let's go on the premise that all of the C. of O's were relative to the waterfront residence and whatever this accessory structure that may or may not have been there for who knows how long does not have any C. of 0. on it, how can they move forward potentially? They have to wait three years of if there's no C. of 0. it's just there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The problem is they're not going to get a C.O. right now because of the way it's been improved unless it's approved as a second dwelling which is why they are here.There's a lot of moving parts here in other words. JOAN CHAMBERS : I'm sure the Nerreau's are willing to you know do what they have to.do to this building you know. I mean we looked at it, it's not like you know we can pick it up and move it, it's built on a slab so we can't get it away from that side yard property line. Z-7 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think the setbacks are an issue, we're trying to figure out the use and it was altered. JOAN CHAMBERS : You've all been in there and quite frankly I don't know what part of it we can chop off. I mean you kind of walk in the door and hit a kitchen/living room and then there's two bedrooms and a bathroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think other applicants have converted created storage rooms in certain places you know with exterior access that sort of thing. You don't have to chop something off unless it impacts your square footage. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Quite frankly Fthink that's somethingtthat you're going to have to discuss with John or Mike or somebody in the Building Department and further examine what to do. You said you met with John but at this point you've done your due diligence, you came to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board is telling you at this point what they think and if you adjourn it and go talk to them that might lead you in a different direction or it may not. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay, so we should adjourn this hearing and I should go talk to John Jarski again and ask him John what area would you accept this as an accessory apartment? Even though no one really wants an accessory apartment and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we are assuming that this was previously an accessory building JOAN CHAMBERS : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it probably was a seasonal cottage. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and but that it might have been a garage and it could have been an accessory to the principle dwelling however. I'd like to hear what you have to say, would you come up to the mic, we record these and transcribe them so just state your name for us please. SHARI NERREAU : I'm Shari Nerreau we're the owners of the property that we're talking about. I don't know if it makes any difference but we know from our neighbor who's been there for over thirty years, he told me the Lauther's lived there and then the Hudsons and then Sealy like people MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lived in the waterfront house or lived in whatever the accessory is? 231 i January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting' SHARI NERREAU : The accessory, the cottage. We also know from the guy who we have a letter from the oil company that they serviced that house, the cottage you know over I don't know how far back the records went but he sent me something saying that you know the records went back to I don't know twenty something years that they went to you know the guy who serviced said something about, oh my goodness the people that lived there it was such a mess. I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there must have been heat in there then if there was oil I delivery. SHARI NERREAU : Exactly that's why when he said that to me I said oh wait you like you serviced that so people lived there and then Jack the plumber Iwho lives up on Indian Neck he is like our neighbor on Indian Neck he's the one who said �you know I walked down the driveway you know and Ms. Laufer screamed at me you know when I first moved and he's been there for you know so many years, over thirty years. So, we know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thirty years only gets you back to the 1990's, I think you need to get back to the 1950's. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think though there's no legal status for it so people may have been living there forever and there's still no legal status for it. The question I had about that is that when you purchased this in 2021 you purchased it usually I'm not quite sure with this all the Certificate of Occupancies it would seem to be at that time it would have been a good time to wonder what's going on with these C. O's? SHARI NERREAU : Well we did speak with our attorney and asked him and he said that that building was I mean on the survey it was you could see that there was three buildings, there was the garage, there was the cottage and the house so you know we looked at it and we said okay clearly there's the town knows what the property looks like. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It was on the survey? SHARI NERREAU : Yea and he just said that that cottage is Pre C.O. so T. A. MCGIVNEY : There's a document that you usually obtain a Pre C.O. when you if there wasn't one so that's one thing that you know that I think is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you clear what that means? A Pre-C.O. a Certificate of Occupancy means the building is habitable legally, it meets building code and all of that. A Pre -C.O. means it existed prior to 1957 which is when zoning was implemented in the Town of Southold. 24 I January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting SHARI NERREAU : Yea we understood it to mean that it didn't need an actual C.O. because it was built pre the requirement for the C.O. and now it would be grandfathered you know and we wouldn't have such a we wouldn't be here discussing it. As far as we knew when we purchased it that it was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You thought it was fine. SHARI NERREAU : Yea of course, yes. If not, that would have been the time to have our attorney to help us but maybe we wouldn't have been able to buy it, I don't know cause clearly it's a very long process that we weren't aware that we would be going through. Anyway, I appreciate you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's absolutely fine, thank you for your comments. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Going back to what you said before, the Board is not going to advise you on what to do and in defense of Kim, I feel for her that applicants come in and are looking for help but you know it's almost inappropriate to say that you know you took her advice because she's taking in the applications and I don't believe that it should be in fact it's gotta be something that you as their advocate has to figure. So, I think that just maybe if you the best thing I would say, you can continue or you can figure out what you want to do with it. JOAN CHAMBERS : No, we're definitely going to continue I mean this is something that has to be resolved, whether we resolve it whether we go to the Building Department or we go to the Town Board for a variance T. A. MCGIVNEY : No I know (inaudible) JOAN CHAMBERS : I honestly thought this was a decision that was made by the Zoning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Town Board has no jurisdiction over this. We would like to collaborate with the Building Department and sort this out. As I said it's not a clear-cut situation and you know,yes you can apply for a Use Variance but as I said, Use Variance is not exactly appropriate here either. The best thing to do is to go back and talk to John or Mike and find out what kind of wiggle room you have here relative to the options that are available. Certainly, the setbacks are not really complicated they are what they are it's just how we can do what they want which is to legalize this other dwelling on the property. It's too big right now to be called an accessory apartment. You're right, I mean'it's beautifully done, it would be difficult to try and cut it back but you know you just have to talk to your clients and talk to the Building Department and figure this out. Do we want to adjourn to the Special just to give you some time to see what you want to do and then we can calendar for Z5 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting depending on what we have to do? I mean if we have to have another hearing, if you need to submit another application, we can just leave this open. JOAN CHAMBERS : I would prefer if you just left this open and we have a meeting with the Building Inspectors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so I'll just adjourn it without a date then. JOAN CHAMBERS : Adjourn without a date and I'll speak to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That does mean that you'll have to re-notice when we have another hearing. JOAN CHAMBERS :That's fine. T. A. MCGIVNEY :There'll be another fee for adjourning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's an adjournment fee, that's why we kind of try to T. A. MCGIVNEY : If you were to go (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There would be another application and another fee but we're trying to give you the flexibility you need in order to sort this out to we hope a successful outcome but we're going to have to have the facts in the record to support it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask two questions, do you the Nerreaus are they full time residents or is this a second home? JOAN CHAMBERS : Not at this point, they're not full time residents at this point but when and if we get all this paperwork straightened out they intend to put a second floor on the waterfront home the main residence and at that point their status may change. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That will probably also need relief then given the setbacks. Oh, I know that's a future thing. The other question I wanted to ask is, who made the improvement to whatever this accessory is? JOAN CHAMBERS : I have no idea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the (inaudible) renovations post 2021 it was done at an earlier time. JOAN CHAMBERS : It was done at earlier time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Without permits. 2 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea, the way it looks now is the way it looked when they purchased it and I believe maybe even the prior owner who didn't own it for very long just a couple of years before they sold it on also. So, we couldn't really find the contractor or the basis for when it got refinished. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then I have an administrative question sort of Kim, I didn't get a copy of the LWRP on this. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible)just today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I looked at my email before I came but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's inconsistent. JOAN CHAMBERS : It's inconsistent because of two residences on one piece of property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You have a copy of the LWRP? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And without permits, I mean boiler plate. JOAN CHAMBERS : So can I assume then that at this point that the property line setbacks of the 2.7 feet for the second home and the property line setback for main residence are not an issue that I have to be dealing with it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we need, I can't speak on what we will vote on but the point is, we don't need any further information. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The structures are the structures. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Unless anybody else needs it. Alright, so I'm going to is there anybody else in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 2,7 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7974—STEVEN and KIM SWEENEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven and Kim Sweeney #7974. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 24, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 190 North Drive in Mattituck. You're up again Joan. JOAN CHAMBERS : Once again, Joan Chambers I live in Southold and I'm representing the Sweeney's for this application and I believe Mr. Sweeney is here if you need to speak to him. Basically, it's an application for an accessory garage and you've been to the property so you understand that half of the property is in a steep area that nobody can build in. Mr. Sweeney wants to put his garage as far back on the property as possible so that it's not basically sitting in the middle of his yard by a swimming pool and his developed area.That was the decision to move it that close to the rear property line because any further would really disturb this sloped area that could involve you know with runoff problems etc., etc. The driveway will be still coming in from the road we're not going to be cutting into that bank so it's basically where this one is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joan there appears to be a 2 foot setback from the side property line. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes,the rear property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The rear property line is a conforming distance. JOAN CHAMBERS : It's conforming it's the side, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but the side yard over there, it's practically sitting on top of that property line. That's a very big variance, the code requires 15 feet and MEMBER LEHNERT : It also shows that it violates the sky plane. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea that part I didn't understand why it wasn't cited. MEMBER LEHNERT : Why it wasn't flagged. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was some comment from a neighbor about a right of way. When we inspected the property, I didn't see anything that appeared to be a right of way a shed in the right of way? I mean it's T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's in the deed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Yea it's in the deed but I don't see any evidence of any kind of passage from one property to the next anywhere. JOAN CHAMBERS : I believe the right of way was never developed or used and it's completely overgrown. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I believe sky planes are only for principle dwellings not for accessories. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you Liz. MEMBER LEHNERT:That answers that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why can't they move it over, it's still just as flat. JOAN CHAMBERS : Towards the principle residence? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea JOAN CHAMBERS : This is the decision that the owners made that they want to leave as much of you know move the garage as far away from the recreational part of the yard as possible being the swimming pool, and the landscaping around it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From site inspection it was an open lawn area by memory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is just an open lawn area, they have plenty of room to move it over. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He could have had this thing built probably if they just pulled it forward where it didn't even need relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true, probably if they moved it a little bit more forward it's still flat for quite a while. It's an impossible terrain, thank goodness I had a Jeep is all I could say or sturdy legs. zq. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I parked on the road and walked up. I did have a question, the drawing from the building provider took notes that the overhead and maybe it's just a proforma sort of drawing but it notes that the overhead door is located on the 30-foot side of the building. If we go back to the survey, I believe the 30-foot side of the building faces the house and the neighbors to the east JOAN CHAMBERS : Oh I see what you're saying, the MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The driveway would seem to not intersect with the overhead door. JOAN CHAMBERS :The driveway is going to come in from North Drive down the side. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The side of the garage that's on the survey. If it was rotated it may well be that the side yard setback would be increased. Do you follow what I'm saying? JOAN CHAMBERS : I follow exactly what you're saying, why don't we rotate the building solving the problem of where the door is and give you a more generous setback from that property line. Would that be more acceptable? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, I think so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Joan, the existing gravel driveway not the paved driveway when did my site inspection I went up North Drive and parked in what I thought was the driveway the incline from Bayview is substantial, will the owner be using that gravel driveway or is that being abandoned? JOAN CHAMBERS : The gravel driveway up from Bayview? I was under the impression from my meetings with him that his driveway is coming in from North Drive to the new garage not the one up from Bayview. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so the steep incline I don't want to say it becomes planted it's forgotten so you still have to keep I would argue the garage door facing North Drive so you can go around the house to get into the back. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I didn't realize that was the intention. STEVEN SWEENEY : My name is Steven Sweeney, I'm the owner of the property. The reason why I need the space between the deck and the garage door is to be able to maneuver a car into that garage door. It looks big on there but well you were.there. I tried different situations trying to lay that building out and I mean my wife would have loved to have it coming off of Bayview but you saw how steep the property is. In order to maneuver a car of back a trailer 3 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting into that garage I need that space. The property behind me the house if you noticed is at the bottom of the hill off of Bayview, there's no way they could ever use that property back there cause it's so hard to even for them they almost have to use my property to get back there onto their property. I don't know if you saw the retaining wall they had there right, behind their house. The previous owner of that house had no problem with .me being that' close. There are new people now, I don't know who they are I haven't met them yet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I had asked Joan the question about the gravel driveway that goes up with the steep incline, that's being abandoned? STEVEN SWEENEY : Yea, I just use that for my tractors to go up and down that's about it. You can't drive a car up there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually parked there. Your tractor was in your driveway practically it was out there I saw it. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about moving that shed that's where the right of way is and then moving the garage over? STEVEN SWEENEY : Well right now it's cause you want 15 feet off of that property line originally so that where I want the building now is like 20 feet off. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey shows 15.8 feet and you got a 15 foot wide right of way so I don't think they could put the building right on top of the right of way. STEVEN SWEENEY : Well Mike said as long as I keep even with my existing garage that he was okay with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which is on the site plan, the 15.8. So, I think the question here is that any possibility to pull the structure forward towards the pool, you indicated you need space for vehicles to (inaudible) I don't know what the distance between the proposed structure and the pool fencing or the pool decking is but it's gotta be at least 40 if not more feet. STEVEN SWEENEY : Would you accept 5 feet off the property line on the back? I've been there for forty plus years and there's no way anybody could ever build a house behind me like that or there's already a house at that property at the bottom of the hill. It's really a landlocked useless piece of land right there, I don't think it's going to bother anybody. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know enough about the right of way but STEVEN SWEENEY : I don't think it's going to bother anybody. 31 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do the Buckingham's benefit of that 15-foot right of way, I mean are they allowed to drive a car down to get to their property? STEVEN SWEENEY : It's never for a car anyway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pedestrian STEVEN SWEENEY : Yes, and if you saw my sorry Nick, it's all wooded it's all overgrown so you could never drive a car through there anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Sweeney we're looking at your survey and I see that you know off of North Drive you've got this asphalt driveway and garage attached to your house. STEVEN SWEENEY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, how are you proposing if you're not going to use the driveway off of Bayview how are you proposing"to get into this new garage? STEVEN SWEEENEY : I'm going to extend my driveway the existing driveway off of North Drive right into that T. A. MCGIVNEY :The driveway (inaudible) into the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Julie, this is all paved the one that goes to the property line so whether he's (inaudible), this is all paved. T. A. MCGIVNEY : So how is he getting into the garage. I didn't do a site inspection so STEVEN SWEENEY : My existing house I'm just going to continue that paved it's already paved. T. A. MCGIVNEY :Through the right of way? STEVEN SWEENEY : Yes and go into the garage door that way. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I thought you said earlier that the right of way is completely overgrown (inaudible). STEVEN SWEENEY : The property behind my property is completely overgrown. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, their property is not overgrown this is STEVEN SWEENEY : The property the existing where the right of way continues onto behind my house is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The point is, how are you going to swing around the pool January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting STEVEN SWEENEY : That's what I mean,that's why I need that space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and into you know into a garage there? STEVEN SWEENEY : I can do it as long as where it is right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that seems pretty intrusive into the very area that Joan Chambers just told us you want to keep open. You're going into your recreational area when you're doing that, you're going very close passed your pool right and into the garage that way. STEVEN SWEENEY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's the case then that's why the door is facing that way. We assumed you were using the existing driveway. STEVEN SWEENEY : You assumed I was using the one in the back the gravel? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes off Bayview. STEVEN SWEENEY : That would never work cause you saw how steep it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely that's why we were wondering what was going on with that driveway. STEVEN SWEENEY : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just grass. To swing around your shed with the asphalt? STEVEN SWEENEY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's already asphalt there right? STEVEN SWEENEY : Partly, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not completely. STEVEN SWEENEY : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the deed but it's no his property. STEVEN SWEENEY : Nobody has ever used it, nobody has ever walked through there and I think it starts from me to use it and the house is continuing behind me towards the east. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, question, would the addition eaved area need to be counted as impermeable surface? January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because it's not counted in lot coverage because it's, driveways just aren't although you're right it is more impermeable material and more runoff. STEVEN SWEENEY : Well it's flat there where the driveway is going to go. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question, I'm just looking through the file to see if there was a copy of who's the beneficiary of the right of way but I'm just reminded about a note that Donna in email to Joan indicated that the shed does not have a C. of 0. so that shed that sits on the right of way and I'm confused cause I thought that there was also some sort of a letter of objection that somebody that commented CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes,the shed in the right of way neighbor said T. A. MCGIVNEY : Was it that one or was it the shed that is going to be removed to put the garage there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No they said the shed that was in the right of way. STEVEN SWEENEY : I can move that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So yea could be moved potentially but I think it also cause it exceeds 144 sq. ft. requires a permit. STEVEN SWEENEY : Alright, as long as I get an okay to get the new building up and then remove (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this looks a little tricky and very awkward maneuvering here. STEVEN SWEENEY : Well I am a truck driver so, maybe if I can go up to the screen so I can show you exactly what I mean about moving the driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure,you can walk up there. STEVEN SWEENEY : (away from microphone) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I'm wondering though is, if the neighbor Buckingham has the use of the right of way to get to the upper part of their property. STEVEN SWEENEY : No, cause the right of way is here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it continues. 341 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting STEVEN SWEENEY : (inaudible away from microphone) they don't have to go on my property it's already on their property in their back yard. (inaudible) they would have to walk across their yard (inaudible) down to the inlet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry you have to be in front of the mic so we can MEMBER ACAMPORA : The neighbor's part of the right of way they would continue to use their right of way they wouldn't be using Mr. Sweeney's right of way to go to North Drive. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess I'd like to echo Nick's question about, who benefits from the right of way? I don't know how far it goes, if it goes all the way to the inlet, are there potentially people on the other side of North Drive who would wish to use that right of way to access the water? STEVEN SWEENEY : I have a neighbor that came with me who lives right across the street from me, she didn't even know the right of way existed. I can speak to her but she's been there for thirty years and they've never even aware of the right of way or ever used it. I have no problem if they wanted to, they could walk through there if they want. After you pass my property it's pretty rough terrain going through there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What probably would be helpful would be to sort of put on the survey to think through exactly what you're turning radius is, where you're going to create asphalt, you need to show the continued driveway. STEVEN SWEENEY : I mean I don't even have to ask CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would have cleared it up, I mean we're just looking at this thing thinking, why is the garage door not facing the driveway. I mean you've got an attached garage and a driveway but it doesn't you know it says right of way it doesn't say driveway, it doesn't show how it's going to swing into that garage. Basically, what we would like to see is the most conforming setbacks we can get out of this. In other words, right now you have a conforming rear yard setback. STEVEN SWEENEY : Side yard, side yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's the side yard, even though it's a wooded lot and it's very steep terrain also all of the terrain over there is very (inaudible). If you can just push it away because here's the problem, when it's that close,two feet you can't even get a ladder up on it safely to maintain it. If you ever needed to paint the side of the garage or something like that, we don't want people having to put equipment up on their neighbor's property. STEVEN SWEENEY : Okay, I understand. What if I made it 5 feet? January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would certainly improve it. STEVEN SWEENEY : Okay, I'll go for 5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you talk to Joan, she's got a lot of experience with this and see what you can do about you know amending this application slightly. STEVEN SWEENEY : Okay, that's your only issue is that the setback the 2 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what's before us, the driveways are not before us but we would like to see you safely get in and out of your garage. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It wouldn't be certain that the 5 would do it, it's just it's better than 2. STEVEN SWEENEY : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we want is the largest one you can possibly give us, the most conforming. The Board has. always, we are legally required to ask for the least non- conformity, the most conforming. So, you may want 2 but if you can give us 10, we want to see 10. In other words, it's a less substantial variance; it's still a variance but not as big as the one you originally asked for. STEVEN SWEENEY : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just seems you know really just from a maintenance point of view to give yourself enough room to be able to walk in that area, you know what's two foot, a wingspan. STEVEN SWEENEY : The overhang is going to be north and south, there's no overhand on the other end, on the back end. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It doesn't matter what, there's a modest I'm sure within the structure. What I was going to say and I don't want to kind of expedite things I don't know how the other Board Members feel but, just a couple of points; I looked at the deed cause I made some highlights earlier during review, the right of way if 15-feet wide, it doesn't say it's a pedestrian right of way it just says right of way. So, in theory somebody if they wanted to and I'm not an attorney probably could assert their right even though it's potentially overgrown. STEVEN SWEENEY : The survey told me it was strictly a walk right of way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Cause there's three different right of ways over different lots. Regardless if it's pedestrian or vehicular, looking at the tax map it shows the different lots 36 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting behind you where I supposed the right of way goes from North Drive to the creek and it (inaudible) creek access. STEVEN SWEENEY : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, you're leaving that right of way opened and untouched, I think the shed needs to be relocated. STEVEN SWEENEY : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And a permit. STEVEN SWEENEY : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I would suggest and if the other Board Members agree but maybe it's a determination that you can just amend the application and potentially we can close it because whether you're entitled to the structure, whether you have a problem getting in and out of your garage or not that's not I think obviously it would be beneficial but if you're you know carrying personal items it's different than backing an eighteen wheeler. We know that the you stated that the dirt road is not the dirt gravel driveway up the hill is not being used for this garage, the garage door faces North Street. I'm more inclined that if you amended the application, you know we can just move forward, increasing the setback or even maybe just pulling the building compliantly forward. STEVEN SWEENEY : Yea, I'm willing to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the variance goes away. STEVEN SWEENEY : Fifteen feet, I wouldn't be able to get a car to swing between that, I mean I can't help it that that hill is like that or else I would put it somewhere else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is just thoughts, I'm one person. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm thinking of is that what we can do is simply ask for an amended application. Give us what you think you maximally can and then the Board can deliberate, that's all. I don't know that anything more is going to be (inaudible) by another hearing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's my thought. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can close subject to receipt of an amended application and if there's a greater setback that we want then we'll we have the option of alternative relief. Joan can explain that to you. Does that make sense to everyone? 37 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of an amended application. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7972—DONALD J. SCHNEIDER and PAMELA E. SCHNEIDER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Donald J. Schneider and Pamela E. Schneider#7972 .This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's August 21, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 890 Ruch Lane (adj. to Arshamomoque Pond) in Greenport. PAT MOORE : Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of Donald and Pamela Schneider, they entrusted me with their application, I'm their neighbor also. I'm happy that when they bought the property, their renovation was very modest, they essentially just renovated the existing cottage the same size with very minor modifications. They tried very hard to make everything conforming and not have to go to the Zoning Board but there is a little stoop on the side, the entrance stoop that had been there that they've cut it back and they need to they want to put a stoop back in a permanent stoop back in. The deck in the rear it had been on grade, I know from personally sitting on this stoop it was very tight, very small and the proposed alterations, 38 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting additions to the deck are certainly reasonable. This is one of the simpler applications I hope you've had. If you have any questions I'm happy to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a Trustees permit, right? PAT MOORE : Yeah they had gotten the Trustees permit early on. At the time there was a thought that maybe they didn't need variances and here they are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're updating the sanitary? PAT MOORE : The sanitary has already been replaced with an IA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Landward of the house? PAT MOORE : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Combined side yard setback we should put that in the record is 21.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25, correct? PAT MOORE : Yes, I don't actually have it in front of me but I'm assuming you're reading it so I'm assuming CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right off the Notice. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Question though about that, on the survey when you add up the two the side yards, I get 21.9 not 21.2 and I know that I think at one point we had a conversation that it's not done mathematically but this is it's a negligible difference but PAT MOORE : It could be the difference between the architect's measurements and the Building Department.The house is not moving so it's there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, it's there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just have a question cause I did a site visit yesterday, it looked like some of the work has already been started, the smaller stoop proposed on the PAT MOORE : Entrance MEMER STEINBUGLER : entrance, it's actually kind of the side of the house if I understand correctly. It looks like the larger stoop has been removed and the smaller one installed (inaudible). PAT MOORE : So, the one that's there I believe is a temporary. What they were able to do is separate the because it was just the alterations to an existing house, they were able to get a 391 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting building permit for the renovations of the house and everything that was conforming so that work was done and I believe is finished. Correct? Pam come on up. PAM SCHNEIDER : Hi Pam Schneider I'm the owner. What you see that stoop, what you think is a stoop, that's what was cut back that's a piece that was left over and it's just sitting there like a building crate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's prettier. PAM SCHNEIDER : Hopefully it'll be prettier, it's not even attached to anything. Does that help? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, thank you. Also, it looked like the ground level deck that was going to be removed PAT MOORE : That was removed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's removed. PAT MOORE : Yea, it was not in very good condition and there was a little bit of my grandkids kept using it to play with their toys and it's like don't get off of that. So, that was removed the wood was starting to splinter. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looks like the elevated deck, the new elevated deck is already in place. PAT MOORE : The existing they cleaned up the one that was already existing so that was the boards were replaced, a new handrail to code but the portion that's extended is the one that's going to need the variance. It's the portion that shows new raised deck. On the drawings the architect shows existing deck to remain, deck two and new raised deck is deck three.The deck three is the new portion. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Got it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a question that is sort of unrelated, Martin I see you're in the audience, this one is not for you but just so that I can better understand and just knowing Ruch Lane, I know the community, this particular parcel I believe also owns the parcel across the street where the garage is located. PAT MOORE : Yea they're a separate single and separate 401 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I notice on the noticing so that was going to be my question, is it in fact a single and separate parcel that's developable where the garage is? PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in theory somebody can put a house on that or are they not tied together? PAT MOORE : No, they're not tied together they were sold separately even prior to the Schneiders buying it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know the property has sold multiple time in the last fifteen or twenty years. PAT MOORE : Yea when Ruch Lane was developed many, many years ago the road was split. There used to actually the old timers Mr. Pittman if you remember who died over a hundred, there was a road that was down at the base of the bank to that road is long gone but the road was put in and there were parcels on both sides. Some of them got developed early on, my neighbor across the street. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One was developed just his past year. PAT MOORE : Exactly the big one at the end. Well, that was an existing house that (inaudible). There was litigation actually Hoffman who is the house on the water the big one,that one the Board tied the Hoffman application to using or extinguishing the rights of the garage piece and that went to Article 78, it was found to be not an appropriate condition because they are separate parcels. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But again, that lot is single and separate even though it has their garage on it presently? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was set up that way all PAT MOORE : It was from the fifties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lots weren't big enough to actually have an accessory in most cases an accessory garage on the property so they all did that,they all went across the street. PAT MOORE : Right, my house for example has no extra lot, I don't have one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The house opposite looks like it had been a garage that (inaudible) 4:1 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I would have to really go back far but I don't think it was ever common ownership but my property needed a variance for the little garage that I have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just curious. PAT MOORE : I have all the history of that street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret, Pat? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Anyone else in the audience? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7973—IX.N.N., LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for IM.N.N., LLC #7973. The is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 1, 2024 amended June 20, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of a single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard 4 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 585 Orchard St. in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody and Happy New Year, welcome to our new Member I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you yet. Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant IM.N.N., LLC. I believe this is a very straightforward application. This is a project that involves additions and alterations, it was a very small addition to the back corner of the property with a second-story addition. The first-floor addition is only 48 sq. ft. with 370 sq. ft. second level addition just to update what is a historic home. This project was already reviewed by the HPC and a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued in July 2024. We're here because in the course of construction it was discovered that there were issues with the foundation that had to be addressed and also with a rim joist and floor joist. When we went back to the Building Department for that it was magically deemed a demo and here, we are. The property as it sits has a non-conforming side yard setback at 8 % feet when 10 is required. The front setback is 12.9-feet to the covered porch and almost 20 feet to the actual structure itself. So essentially, we are just seeking variance relief here just to allow this project to be completed within the pre-existing non-conforming setbacks. That side yard setback as mentioned is really just because of the angular configuration of this lot. We wouldn't have a problem if we were doing work in the front but because we're doing work in the back it triggers the need for relief. Again, just to address the criteria real quick, again it's a second story construction entirely within the footprint of the house. There really is not work being done any structural work or additions being done within that front yard setback but the relief is nevertheless triggered so we don't believe that this is going to have any detriment to nearby properties and certainly the resulting structure will be in character with surrounding communities, properties in the community many of which have non-conforming setbacks. In order to achieve the benefit of this renovation and to really make the property livable by today's standards we have to come here and get this relief and really, we're just here because of the deemed demo aspect of the property. The side yard variance relief is only fifteen percent, obviously the front yard is a little more significant but again we're just within the existing footprint and there's no indication of any adverse physical or environmental impacts. I am joined today by the project architect David Snowden and Nick Mazzaferro is the project engineer should the Board have any questions about the structural issues but other than that that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're maintaining the non-conforming setbacks. Also, of course we've been out there and looked at the property, there's also you know sidewalk and there's like a grassy shoulder so the front yard setback that is non-conforming looks a lot larger than what it actually is because there is a lot of property lines over here but then there's all that other stuff on the other side of it going to the road. It's typical of what that 43 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting area of Orchard St. looks like. Just to enter into the record that the it complies with the GFA and the sky plane. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Otherwise completely conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I have no further questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to add a compliment. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh,thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was a blighted property for years it was horrible to look at. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I can't take any credit for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say you have HPC approval already? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh yea in June. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, great. Well,the Notice just says you need it, obviously you're going to need it in a historic district. MARTIN FINNEGAN : All done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Happy New Year everybody, Nick Mazzaferro P 0 Box 57 Greenport, New York. I'm the engineer on this job and I've been involved in this through the last two owners. It started out to be a major restoration of a blighted property, the property was like terrible. The second-floor bathroom drained through the outside it was like ridiculous. We got involved in the job and it started by the first owner with a demo permit and then she sold the property to the current owners and they started to get involved. We tweaked the plans a little bit, refiled them, got a building permit and a demo permit to start the work and as soon as we 44 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting started the work we went down and we realized the foundation was going to collapse. We went a refiled again and we jacked the house up and,took the foundation out and put a completely new foundation in. Then we went to lower the house back down and at that point and time we realized that the whole bottom of the house the entire silt plate and the beginning of the two by four stud walls had completely rotten out whether from the wet rod or termites or whatever. The house is now like eight or twelve feet in the air, it's up on cribbing, the new foundation is done and we're trying to get the house lowered back down and the only alternative we had and the contractor that was handling the house jacking suggested that we come in there, cut the house out, do a new basically grade beam at the bottom of the house and reset all the studs which we hurried up and did so that we could put the house back down. Once the house was back down, we completed the framing according to the permit, we asked Southold Town to come in and inspect the framing. When they showed up, they determined it was now a fifty percent demolition, that's how all this got triggered. Like is said, I've been involved a long time so my comment on this is about those situations, there was no way to know in the beginning what we were going to find out once we until we opened the walls up on the inside and jacked the house up. For it to trigger a front yard setback (inaudible) especially since we had designed a house that was completely compliant and didn't require zoning for the first permit that fifty percent concept of, I know you people are looking at expediting zoning regulations and changing to modify stuff, you recently did the rear yard setback versus a new extension or a deck structure which compliment you for. This is another one that maybe you can address, and I now my comment is kind of general but it is about a specific spot where if you discover something that creates under the current guide laws zoning issue but maybe there could be an administrative version. This house had a Pre-existing C. of 0., we had a building permit for it and it was somebody's opinion that it was now a fifty percent demolition but it was not based;on an intentional demolition it was based on deterioration. There's a statement in the NYS Building Code that says, if you have a deteriorated structure that would have had a violation on it, if it's not repaired to make it living and habitable then that is not counted toward the value of a demolition project. I'm just throwing this concept out cause maybe this is one you want to look at to maybe expedite some these zoning hearings so you don't get this situation created again.Thanks for the consideration but yea that's quite a place now, what a difference. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's gorgeous. Kim pointed out one thing or I guess Mr. Snowden, maybe you can update the site plan.The setbacks shown from the lot line to the structure are at 19.4 not the relief sought which goes to the front porch, so she just suggested so that our records are all neat and clean that you update that document and email it to us. Hopefully that can be done quickly. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, no problem. 4 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Is there anyone in the audience?You want me to close that subject to receipt or just close it? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would close it, I don't want to dimmish the importance of the details but I trust Martin that you'll CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion then to close, reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7979—VICKY PAPSON,TRUSTEE OF VICKY PAPSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick you are recused from this one. The next application before the Board is for Vicky Papson, Trustee of Vicky Papson #7972. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's August 12, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line modification at 1)two proposed lots having less than the permitted lot width of 150 linear feet located at 11100 NYS Route 25 and 11120 Main Rd. (adj.to Gardiners Bay) in East Marion. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning again, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicant. I'm joined here today by Vicky Papson who the owner of the properties. This is again I think a pretty straightforward application, it actually was here before this Board many moons ago for similar relief when the original setoff was granted prior to the original set off being granted. This is simply an application in conjunction with a lot line for lot width relief to move or shorten the distance of the rear yard lot line actually to reduce the size of parcel one 46 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting to a conforming 42,000 sq. ft. lot which would result obviously the increase in the size of parcel two. Even though relief was previously granted the Building Department has determined that because under current code this is deemed a re-subdivision of these lots, we need to come back to renew the relief for the front lot and also get lot width relief for the rear lot which is 140 feet wide where 150 feet is required. As I think we can all agree, this is not a further subdivision this is just simply the movement of a lot line. I would suggest to you that the granting of relief will have no impact on the surrounding community, it will essentially be imperceptible to nearby properties.This is a wooded lot, I'm sure you've seen it and moving the lot line forward we're still going to have a lot that is entirely conforming otherwise to the bulk schedule and will be actually more consistent with the size of many of the parcels to the west and northeast. We have submitted letters in support from neighbors to the application. I know you have some letters in opposition CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite a number. MARTIN FINNEGAN :that I would submit are based on a misinterpretation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't see any letters of support. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have those Martin? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I do, I can hand them in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get a number of objections. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Here you go. Just to briefly to comment on the letters of opposition all of which are just simply referring to a covenant that was required by the Planning Board at the time the set off was granted back in 2004 which is the standard, no further subdivision covenant. I would submit to you that the opposition is based on a reading of that which is interpreted to say that it would preclude a lot line modification. I believe that issue would probably be before the Planning Board and not before this Board. There is no opposition based on the actual lot width that is before this Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's existing and it's going to be maintained. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly but I just wanted to just comment on that. I had the conversation with the Planning Board at Work Session and they,agreed, the numbers that were in attendance agreed that should not have any impact on the application the lot line modification application because there is no further subdivision. 47 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Two lots exist and two lots will continue to exist. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're making one much bigger and one much smaller. Can you explain why you want to make it smaller, why your client wants to make it smaller? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's just because the thought is that the family would eventually sell off a parcel and to maintain they live in the waterside parcel and it just made sense to enlarge that parcel for their family needs and limit the portion that they were going to sell off. It's not really complicated but it's still a conforming lot and in consultation with their real estate professionals they recommended this to do this and that's why we're here. I don't know if you have any questions about that covenant, I'd be happy to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I do want to clarify something because I questioned the Notice of Disapproval with the Building Department because they made reference to merger and I thought that was incredibly confusing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I did too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a lot line change, what merging? If the lot line is changed there's this lot and that lot. Registration with the county, of course, registration with the Board of Assessors, absolutely. She said I get it; sorry I'll be more careful in future. When I started to question it, she said oh I see what you mean, no, no, no they don't need to nothing to be merged it just needs to have to be registered with the county and Board of Assessors cause there's different lot area and so on. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it was because the Planning Board is going to require a deed that is going to scoop out that section of the property so we have to file three deeds to move the metes and bounds from one to the other and then a deed that is a confirmatory deed that is going to be filed so that could be what Tracey was thinking in her head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now I get it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Going to merge this little piece to that little piece and it's going to be the rear lot is going to be (inaudible) at the end of the day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Planning sent us comments saying, no comments, now I know why they said no comments. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is what it is at the end of the day and I don't believe you know I think the subdivision code being adopted after the approval of this is what maybe that the 481 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting definition of subdivision to include re subdivision and this is now a re subdivision even though what is that, it's not a lot line change that created a little confusion with the whole thing. I'm pretty sure when the Planning Board drafted this covenant prior to the code change they did not intend it to preclude a lot line change in the future. It's just you're not allowed to have anymore lots; you can still have two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly MARTIN FINNEGAN That's what that is all about. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just have a question and I'm sorry if I missed it. When you were talking about the width, I don't see on this where the (inaudible) 140 feet and there's a note here that it was an average but there's nowhere I just didn't see how they came up with the 140, it's 104 here and the 127. MARTIN FINNEGAN :There's a definition in the code that you take the I can't give you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If a lot is not perfectly parallel and it bulges slightly and that you know you have to the width would be the average between the two. Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Please come to the mic so that we can hear you. PATRICIA PYUN : I had two questions, the first one was just actually answered because you said there's no further subdivision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct, its' still going to be two lots. PATRICIA PYUN : So then the one that's being shortened to approximately one acre. There's a drawing there that could be a potential house built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. PATRICIA PYUN : Here say from friends that live in the area, I was told that you needed more than one acre to build on that property, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it's 40,000 sq.ft. is a conforming sized buildable lot. PATRICIA PYUN :.Would that house front Trumans Path or the path behind it, the little street behind it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect the applicant would have the option of fronting on either because they'd have two front yards. It would be Main Rd. and it would be Trumans Path, they're both streets. We can't know for sure what the future would hold but likely there's 49 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting room for a conforming house to be put there. The idea here is that the lots that front on Main Rd. which would be the principle front yard are about that size rather than these great big wooded lots. This Board has no way of knowing because we don't have any plans in front of us about a proposed anything, it's just showing that a house can be put there. PATRICIA PYUN : It's such a wooded area, like all the trees coming down and like the egress and ingress because right now down Trumans Path apparently there's a Board and it's a very narrow road to come out and to turn so I was just wondering like we have the corner lot on the other side. They were driving on our property but the previous owner put a fence in and they approached us to move the fence so that they can keep driving on our property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't need to do that if you don't want to. PATRICIA PYUN : We didn't. Then I was concerned that if that was open that they might do the same thing or you know with the trees we had to cut down some trees because there's trees going over so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we really can't predict what some future owner is going to do but if they're doing something that is not allowed by building code including tree cutting, there's a big whole big conversation going on with the Tree Committee now about not clear cutting wooded properties so I don't know it depends on when they do it and what code exists at the time. Certainly, if they're doing something that the code doesn't allow, they'll be back before this Board or some other Board.Then you'll know all about it then. PATRICIA PYUN :Thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's someone on Zoom. PHIL FERRO : I'm Phil Ferro, we're residents with my wife Agnes on Trumans Path. I think I understand the application and my concern and I really wasn't all that concerned until it was mentioned the front of the house being on Trumans Path. Under no circumstances we want any access to that house and I understood that Vicky wanted to resize the lot so she can I would imagine front it on the Main Rd. and have a driveway there which I'm okay with right. Under no circumstance, Trumans Path is a private road, we don't want any access, any more traffic it's as mentioned before it's very narrow there, it's very tight so I want to make sure and I want to go on record that if a house is built and that's her prerogative to do that that the access is from the Main Rd. or from her driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I appreciate your comment and I understand what you're asking for. There's a curb cut that would be required on Main Rd. which is Department of So January 9,2025 Regular Meeting Transportation and a lot of this would depend it's a very heavily trafficked road so this is probably something the Planning Board would have to deal with if anything. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't believe that the Papson property has a right of way over Trumans Path. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have their own right of way. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right so what is contemplated is access off the Main Rd. or over the flag that exists on the property to get to the rear lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That makes perfectly good sense, thank you for pointing that out. PHIL FERRO : It came from you guys that it could be fronted on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was my mistake because I was looking at the .fact that it's sandwiched between a private right of way which is access to the waterside lot and Trumans Path which I know very well from friends living there and so on. I went up both just to see what everything looked like, it's quite wooded all the way back and I said it would be a second front yard but it's not legally a second front yard if there is no legal access to that and if it is a private right of way they are barred from they can put the front of the house there if they want but they're going to have to go off Main Rd., their driveway is going to have to be off Main Rd. PHIL FERRO : That's all I wanted to be assured about. I know in the past Vicky has mentioned that you know on the other properties before this proposal to have access from Trumans Path so I just want to make sure that that's clear, we don't want that to happen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they legally can because that you know SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie sorry, we have one more person, Marilyn. Marilyn you're on the phone, press *6 to speak. MARILYN PASIERB : My name is Marilyn Pasierb, I also live on Trumans Path. I want to second to what-Phil just said and I guess what my concern is, I don't want to speak for my neighbors but my concern is, in the first variance it was granted it was the two lots in perpetuity; will that continue to be on this next variance stated that only two lots can be there? I think in the past years it had been considered to have two or three lots on that piece of property but it will be stated clearly that only two lots can be there. I January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe the Covenants and Restrictions would you know are in perpetuity and they only allow two lots. What they're proposing is to continue to have two lots, it's just that one lot is going to be smaller and the other one is going be bigger. MARILYN PASIERB : Right okay that's what my concern was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're just changing that lot line that's between the two lots as you go up Trumans Path. Let's say it's in the middle. MARILYN PASIERB : I understand that, I just was wondering with the changing of that last variance if the continuation of only two lots continues or somewhere years down the line someone can say oh no now we can make it four lots or three lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Covenants and Restrictions are in perpetuity and they remain in effect. MARILYN PASIERB : Okay, thank you and I agree with Phil on the entrance to that lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz anybody else on Zoom? Is there anybody else in the audience? Is there anything from the Board? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie, we have a hand up. ELIZABETH O'REILLY : Sorry I'm in between in and out of work so excuse me for being late with my hand up. I also have a property on Trumans Path and I second what Phil Ferro and Marilyn Pasierb just said, we don't want any more traffic on Trumans Path it's already very narrow. I just wanted to second what they both said. Oh, my name is Elizabeth O'Reilly, I emailed a letter already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much for your comment. Now anybody else? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch. 5 . January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7975—STRITZLER TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stritzler Trust #7975. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 27, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to legalize an "as built" deck addition with a sauna attached to an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" accessory deck at 1) "as built" and proposed construction more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 2) "as built" deck addition is located less than the code required 100 feet .531 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting from the top of the bluff, 3) "as built" accessory deck is less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 4) "as built" deck addition located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 955 Soundview Ave. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? I wonder if Anthony is late. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I will call the office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's nice. I'm going to wait one more second and if they don't show up, I'm just going to go on to the next application. They're probably on their way over or something. I'm just going to make a motion to recess this application until representative appears before the Board. Is there a second on that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. I'm going now to open up the hearing for the next one. HEARING#7976—TIMOTHY P. and CHARENE G. MURRAY(STORK) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Timothy P. and Charene G. Murray also know as Stork #7976. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13C (accessory uses) and the Building Inspector's August 22, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" non-permitted recreation space in an existing accessory garage building (BP#50551) at 1) "as built" recreation space constructed in an accessory garage is not a permitted use located at 1140 Park Ave. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck. 541 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Good afternoon, Happy New Year. Karen Hoeg from Twoumey, Latham on behalf of the applicants. Timothy and Charene Murray, we are here today seeking a variance from Article III Section 280-13C and a Reversal of the Notice of Disapproval dated August 22, 2024 to legalize the "as built" fitness workout area on the second floor of an existing three- car detached garage. The property is a conforming 3-acre waterfront parcel in the R40 zoning district. It's a corner lot on Maratooka Rd. and Park Ave. The Murrays have recently purchased the property from Ryan Stork on October 1, 2024. The Murrays are not new to the North Fork, due to a scheduling conflict they could not be here in person however they asked me to read the following statement. To the Zoning Board of Appeals, my ties to the North Fork go back to my childhood. I was born at Mitchell Air Force Base in Hempstead and my first fifteen summers were spent on Smith Lane in Jamesport at my grandparent's cottage. What we love about the North Fork is how little it has changed and we greatly appreciate the efforts of the community to remain true to its roots. I'm from a large family that has always been into physical fitness and sports. My mom paid basketball for Queens College and my dad was an Air Force handball champ. One of my bothers played basketball for West Point and I played basketball for Columbia University in New York City, class of 1973. My wife and believe working out everyday is an important part of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. We assure you the gym is only for our own personal use and it will be well used as I'm always in training for my next handball tournament. If anyone knows of another handball player on the North Fork, I'm always looking for a game. Sincerely,Tim and Charene Murray. As you can see the Murrays are a sports enthusiast and are part of a multi-sport family. I have an article form Sports Illustrated about the Murray family in the early nineteen seventies which I thought you might find of interest. The applicant is actually, Tim Murray is one of ten children and it details the family. The article details the athletic legacy of this family and Mr. Murray is one of ten children who are competitive athletes. Mr. Murray is an avid jogger and has completed many marathons and half marathons. As stated in his letter he is an active handball player and has won national world titles. Daily fitness workouts are part of the Murray's lifestyle. The second-floor fitness space is entirely within the footprint of the existing garage with no new ground disturbance to their property. The second-floor is not visible to neighbors or community members and variance relief is needed as the town code does not recognize private recreational space such as a personal fitness workout area in an accessory structure as a permitted use. The recreational use as stated in the code refer to public uses which this isn't. As noted in the pictures and seen in the Board's inspection, there is a treadmill, elliptical machine, dumbbells and free weights for the homeowner's personal use and clearly having such is customary and incidental to the principle use under the town code. The accessory structure functions as a hybrid, it's an accessory garage and pool cabana with sink and a half bath on the first floor to service the adjacent pool. There's no dimensional relief needed as the accessory structure itself is conforming to zoning. There's no cooking or sleeping facilities 5's January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting on the second-floor space or in the entirety of the garage nor will there be in the future. The plans submitted to the Building Department for the accessory garage with a half bathroom with a toilet and sink on the first floor and we have provided for you that there is Suffolk County Health Department approval for the independent septic system serving the half bath and the Suffolk County Health Department approval references no bedrooms. As per the Town Building Department Inspection report dated September 9, 2024 the only open item needed for issuance of a C.O. and close out an open permit#50551 for the accessory garage is Zoning Board relief for the second-floor fitness area and workout space. We submitted a Memo of Law on Friday addressing the variance standards so I'll only briefly touch upon those. We believe that there's no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Again, it's only for the family's own personal use, it's not used for cooking or sleeping now or in the future and there's no visual impact to neighbors. The ZBA has determined that a recreational use in an accessory structure to be considered it must be for the owner's personal use with no commercial component. Reference is made to a prior Board decision ZBA 7132 based upon an application for a building permit to construct a 1,240 sq. ft. private residential fitness building for a squash court with basement in an accessory structure. The applicant stated that the accessory building will only be used for the enjoyment of the property owners and their family and not for any public functions of any kind. The use was for personal recreation and like here is otherwise non-habitable, non- cooking, no living, no sleeping will take part in any place of the accessory building. Also mentioned in our Memo of Law was that, years ago there was an approval regarding dormers which were needed in order to comply with the weight room in an accessory structure and actually the use of the weight room was not even considered to be (inaudible) to with the town code it was the dormers that where the variance relief was needed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What decision was that? KAREN HOEG : It was decision No. 6440 and that's also noted in our Memo that we provided. Going back to the variance standards, the relief is necessary to allow the use as a fitness workout area for the homeowners although private fitness or recreational uses for private means are not listed on the accessory uses in the zoning code the applicant believes that it should be considered with a range of customary accessory uses to a principle dwelling when used by the homeowner and their family. It's not substantial, it's only for interior use contained within the existing footprint of the conforming structure. There will be no physical or environmental impact to the neighborhood. While the applicant was aware of the unpermitted use when they purchased the property that knowledge doesn't preclude the granting or variance relief and the application was actually being worked on by the time that we got to closing and the new owners wanted to undertake continuing moving forward with getting the variances which is why we're here. January 9,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, here's part of the dilemma, you've addressed the variance standards but a non-permitted use is not a part of the,bulk schedule, it's not a dimensional variance, it's not a setback. So, it's really the use itself and the conundrum here is if you were to apply for a Use Variance that doesn't quite work either. KAREN HOEG : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The accessory structure is permitted but the use inside of it is not at this point and time something that is allowed to be located in an accessory structure. A Use Variance requires if you wanted to put, I said it earlier today the same thing came up, if you wanted to put a gas station in a residential zone that's a Use Variance. That use is not permitted in that zone district. I think moving forward we're going to have to kind of clarify how to handle some of these in a consistent and responsible fair way cause it kind of falls in between the cracks. KAREN HOEG : Yes it does and the town code recognizes certain accessory uses such as you know there's been legalization of artist studios which have been "as built" in accessory structures you know the squash court that I referenced previously which was a private use but yes to your point it falls within the cracks. Is not necessarily an area variance although that's how it's been historically been treated. Really there should be a town code change to address things of this nature but you know that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hopefully that's forthcoming but we don't know yet. KAREN HOEG : Right, right I understand that there is zoning code changes in the works. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That came about through a code interpretation that the Zoning Board did, both workshops and accessory artist studios. KAREN HOEG : Yes, right but to that point I mean there have been I mean this is it goes all to the use. I'm sure throughout town there are accessory structures such as this that people have you know use for various means such as a workout area for their family members and not even thinking that there needs to be any kind of permissible permit in order to maintain that use. The situation here came into place when the prior owner was doing renovations on the existing house, built the garage, the contractor finished the space and then went to the Building Department to get everything blessed and signed off to close at the open permits and that's when it came to their understanding that this was an issue. Now everything on the property is C.O'd with the exception of the garage this being the only open item. So, yes, it is a unique situation and it is kind of hybrid use of the structure with the pool the half bath as part of the accessory structure which you're allowed to have under code. Yes, I do understand that it is a unique situation here. 57 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While I have to say, I appreciate the personal letter from your clients, you know very well that the Zoning Board is not allowed legally to personalize determinations. It's hard you know we're human beings after all so it's a little difficult sometimes to ignore those things but we have to the best of our ability we have to try and put that aside because the property could get changed tomorrow. KAREN HOEG : Understood. I thought it was interesting in the case where the Board approved the squash court where there was testimony and evidence that the family members were avid squash players and you know it kind of pointed to the fact that why it was needed as a personal use, it wasn't open as a gym for people, it wasn't used for training it was used for the family members. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right about that and I think what we did when we looked at that was thought well this is squash is very close to tennis and tennis courts are legal depending on what yard they're put in. I think we saw some potential similarity there but we have to grapple with this, I guess. KAREN HOEG : I'm happy to answer any other questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No question, it is what it is. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't have any questions, thanks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Karen, this is a larger property, my understanding it's in the R40 zone KAREN HOEG : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : we've had other people sort of work around like a compound environment to achieve I guess their end goal, a building like this could have been deemed a separate house on a standalone lot and then they could use it however they would like. Why didn't the applicant maybe go that route or is that a route that you would consider? KAREN HOEG : I don't believe that was something I mean they love the fact that most of the property is undisturbed. The house at the bay has been under substantial renovations and all of that has been done. The garage, they didn't want to over structure the house, I mean there's plenty of lot coverage here obviously but they didn't want to have it loaded with various structures. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But they could cast off the lot with this structure which would then be deemed a house with a kitchen CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about subdividing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Right doing a subdivision sorry I didn't say that clearly, as an alternative. They would have their home gym,there would be a bedroom in it also KAREN HOEG : Right, I don't think that that ever was considered. I believe that the prior owner when this was constructed enjoy the bucolic nature of the property. I mean it's a beautiful setting, to add more structures and subdivide it to'add a house I don't know if the town would want to add more density and have it be subdivided I don't think that that would be beneficial. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think it's beneficial to the community but it's (inaudible) because they have a larger lot in a zone that would permit that which would sort of take the problem away. Now, you had mentioned that this applicant the current one, the Murray's not the Storks, the family is large and you said he's like one of twelve I think I heard you say or one of ten? KAREN HOEG : Yea, so yes the applicant Tim Murray is one of ten children. He has roots on the North Fork, he has family members that,come and stay and when they're here they MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The question I wanted ask relative to that, the family that uses this house whether they're full time or weekends I don't know it looks like it's a second home, how large is that family that's there the nuclear family whether it's a couple or they've got five kids, twelve kids, no children, how large? KAREN HOEG : It's a couple and I believe that they have one child and a grandchild as well but their family members do come up and visit and they have guests. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just knowing that house, I'm familiar with it I was the past President of the Mattituck Historical Society, I've been in the house for many different reasons, there's three full floors plus a basement why couldn't the applicant put the fitness room in the house? KAREN HOEG : Well the current applicant purchased the property as is so it was a matter of cleaning up something that the prior owner had constructed and put the second floor above the garage for I mean I'd have to go back and ask the prior owner what the reasoning was for doing so. 591 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) bought it as is they could have the fitness in the house, the fitness gym or whatever we're calling it but then the second floor would be just storage. I think that we've allowed storage that's I don't want to say conditioned but where its sheet rocked it's kept clean for whatever storage the owner needs. KAREN HOEG : But then what's the difference? I mean if you have the sheet rocked space and you have the conditioned space, whether you put a set of weights in that space or if you put a box or outdoor furniture for storage you know what's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue the difference is that from a code standpoint, the code allows storage on the second floor of the garage it can have the half bathroom the gym area is supposed to be in the house. I didn't make the law, we're here and obligated to follow the law so I'm just trying to understand what's going on. I mean on a personal note, I don't know how detrimental to the community that use that the applicant is proposing is but from"a standpoint of following the code and trying to see what could be done or what the applicant could do is a different conversation. I think that's what we're here talking about. I'm just one of five I don't know if other people have an opinion about storage versus the actual three- story house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a common use, you know garages typically have storage with them. We're looking at things that people want to do with their accessory buildings that in the code it doesn't specifically allow to be done there. The same is true with home offices, we've had plenty of those and you know people are working from home now. We'll see if the code changes but at the moment our obligation is to uphold what the code is or to grant relief from it if justifiable. So, we'll see what we can come up with. KAREN HOEG : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just come to the mic and state your name. JUNE BECKSTED : My name is Jane Becksted, so I'm the neighbor. I got a letter from you guys or their lawyer. My only question which you kind of answered; what's permissible and the lawyer answered what the intent is and I guess my only question which you kind of answered but it you did grant the variance what would this owner or any owner in the future be allowed to do with the building later perhaps? Can they add to it, turn it into you mentioned a house, so that was my curiosity there because as the lawyer noted and as the new owners noted it's very quiet back there so I was just curious about what 6,Q January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at the moment they couldn't put a house there because it's one lot you can only have one house. What Member Planamento was suggesting was that there's enough property there that if they wanted to create you know subdivide that large lot into two lots which is a whole other process then MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which is permitted by right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that accessory structure could become a principle structure. You can't have an accessory structure on a lot without a principal use. The way it is now, the house is the principal use and the garage with some cabana you know pool house related stuff, a half bathroom which is permitted in the code that's what's there. What's not allowed is using it as a recreation space on if it's on the first floor or second floor it doesn't matter. So, they're trying to legalize that and the reason they're here is cause the code says you can't do that, you can't have that use there. You can have it in your house, you can have home office in your house, you can have a gym in your house but in an accessory structure the current code says you can't. JUNE BECKSTED : You can't have a gym but they can have a pool house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, pool house/cabana is a permitted accessory use. Now this is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And limited to 350 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's the thing, it's very limited in size, it's not meant to be big so this has turned into something that has more than one use. It's storage, its garage, it's related to the pool house, the half bath is allowed. I don't know if you would call that a cabana though what's there it's not really. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No and the pool is quite a distance away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the pool like over there but it's a half bath, it's really not a pool house although they use it conveniently because it's closer than the house is and upstairs is a fully furnished almost professional looking you know like "CRUNCH", it's a gym, it's a proper gym and it's finished and conditioned.Typically, accessory structures like garages you can have sheetrock but they're not allowed to be heated or air conditioned because then that could easily be turned into habitable space. You're not supposed to have habitable space in most accessory structures. Does that JUNE BECKSTED : Yea kind of yep, I think so. Honestly, I don't object to a gym, I object to a house because then it would be a different CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From what I gather it isn't very likely to happen. ft January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think so either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the new owners the prior owners they loved the large lot and you know it's beautifully screened from view, it's quite private. He was just exploring legal potential but I think what we have to come to grips with is, what do we do when the use is not permitted by code and is there a way that relief can be provided anyway. I don't know the answer to that yet, we have to come to we have to grapple with it. JUNE BECKSTED :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? Karen, anything else from you? KAREN HOEG : No nothing further. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to address one other thing Karen, in your application you submitted the withdrawn application from 2018 where you were actually applying to an earlier Board seeking permission KAREN HOEG : It was for a Use Variance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right well I don't want to get down to what the determination of the variance request was but the applicant actually wanted to create a gym. KAREN HOEG : At that time that that application was filed the structure was constructed, the gym was already up there MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That was going to be my question,the gym was already there? KAREN HOEG : Yes, correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, the applicant the prior owner at the time had knocked down several buildings, built a new garage where they had applied where it was just going to be storage on the second floor, they then what you just now announced for this hearing that the contractor continued work, finished the space building out in fact.the gym which is in simple words while it does look like a "CRUNCH" it's really just a finished room and it could take on any number of uses regardless but we're talking about a gym use and it was that prior owner that did all this work; they withdrew their application so they had a finished room and sort of just walked away from the project knowing that they didn't have a C of 0 and then at some point at a later date we're now in 2023 made the submission prior to their sale that they wanted to legalize that. I'm just trying to understand the timeline correctly. KAREN HOEG : Sure, so initially when they were doing the renovation to the house and they built the garage and the contractor finished the second floor space as conditioned space the 76Z January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting gym equipment was up in that space and the contractor had gone to close out the open building permit and it was brought to the contractor's attention and the architect that they can't have that gym space up there to get the C.O. So, they applied for a Use Variance and submitted an application. I believe the pictures from the prior application show the same exact way out as it is today and I think it even got to the point where a public hearing was scheduled and that time, they actually had retained me to come in and help them out and ] said, well this is not technically a Use Variance. It's kind of you know a unique situation here, it really doesn't fit even within squarely defines of the code are so I had recommended at that time that they withdraw and you know reconsider how they're going to apply for this or what their options are and that was prior to COVID and the next thing I knew I had heard from them when the house was for sale. So, that's kind of it but the space itself had not changed. I think the only difference from that prior application to 2024 was, they got final Health Department approval for the septic system, they got all the electrical permits in place, all the electrical approvals and then they had another inspection by the Town Building Department to come out to close out all open permits on the property as part of the sale and issue an updated permit because all of the permits 'had since expired for the garage which is why we're back here. That's kind of the timeline in terms of what happened but that space was built out with the gym equipment up there, you'll see the pictures in the prior ZBA application. I don't think anything has changed; I think the equipment is probably exactly in the same spot it was back in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is exactly the same, it looked very familiar when I saw that. KAREN HOEG : Yea I think everything is exactly the same as it was in 2019. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the other question I want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, you're seeking a Reversal of the Notice of Disapproval. KAREN HOEG : Well the Notice of Disapproval says that we have to come to Zoning to get relief for the recreational space so you know I think as part of the application whether it's you know if it's not going to be treated as an area variance then the Notice of Disapproval should be reversed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else here? Is there anybody on Zoom? Anybody else in the audience? Okay, I guess we can just close, what do you think? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? �3 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Anthony, we opened up Stritzler and then I had to temporarily adjourn it because you weren't here so we went on to the other one. Let me see what time it is, I think probably what we should do is go on to the one that was scheduled for 1:20 and then get back to you. It's only one, so in fairness, agree? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes HEARING#7978-CARLA SCIARA and LESTER HILBERT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Carla Sciara and Lester Hilbert #7978. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 207A (1) b and the Building Inspector's August 8, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish as per Town Code definition and reconstruct a single- family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum primary front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard setback of 20 feet, 3) located less than the minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 5) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 1525 Old Orchard Rd. in East Marion. STEVE AFFELT : Hi, good afternoon Board and Chairperson. My, name is Steven Affelt, my office is at 250 Patchogue Yapank Rd. in East Patchogue. Today we're here asking for a variance for several problems with out irregular sized lot. We have multiple front yards and that creates several complicated issues with both our front yard, rear yard, side yards all of which we tried to maintain the existing setback distance from the original house except for the front yard rule, we did add the extension. Our floor area ration is 7.5% over the new permissible maximum and our lot coverage is almost 27% over the permissible due to we have many patios, porches, overhangs. We are really asking for this variance because of the new floor area law as well as the zoning changes that made this R40 lot on this 12,000 sq. ft. piece of property. Our site lines are all in compliance with the house and the property lines. 641 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting We have already have our IA system approved from the Suffolk County Department of Health. The new proposed structure which is going to be considered by the Building Department is a new dwelling considering our value is well beyond probably what the existing house is. It's going to be comporting with the character of the neighborhood. We plan to still keep the curated landscape with the tall trees and everything that's in the front yards to still screen the new dwelling as it is currently. As I said before, we're not trying to encroach any further than we already have with the setbacks for the existing dwelling the decks and the porches and I believe that this will not still will not be the largest house on these two blocks both Old Orchard and North Rd. The property directly to the south is a much larger parcel and I could r site several other ones on Old Orchard alone that are larger than this one, the same size or similar sized piece of property. I feel like we're still comporting with the character and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well let's enter into the record the relief that you're actually requesting which is a front yard setback at 27 foot 4 inches where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. A secondary front yard setback at 3 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet. A rear yard setback at 24 foot 10 inches where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. Lot coverage of 27.2% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. GFA of 2,333 sq. ft. where the code allows a maximum of 2,169.75 sq. ft. This is a second-story addition on a one-story single-family dwelling, increasing the garage height for a car lift is that correct? STEVE AFFELT: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing to maintain the existing non-conforming setbacks. No GFA averaging has been submitted, are you intending to possibly do that or is this difficult to do or what? STEVE AFFELT : No, no we can I can submit before the end of the week but probably before your next session so that you can have that as part of your deliberation evidence/materials. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason I ask is because this code is written so that the Board may not grant a GFA area that's larger than the average in the neighborhood. The Board of Appeals in an effort to define what the immediate area was because you know like there was like one here, one there, one there, we provided some guidelines for that which we're happy to supply to you. STEVE AFFELT : The last time I did the same averaging CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's right you did this before, so you got the drill. January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT : But I think that might have been before you set more parameter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The guidelines? STEVE AFFELT : Yes, I'd like a copy. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, it's basically it's the subject lot and then the lots, five lots on either side and then the subject lot across the street and five lots in each direction there.That gives you plenty to work with. Now, every property is different, some lots aren't developed some don't have five so just do what's there I guess and you can provide visuals and so on to show what the size looks like not that we haven't seen it we've been out there. We know the house sizes kind of vary in that area. Let's see if the Board has any questions here, Rob let's start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : You asked my question about the averaging. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will submit. With that shape and with a corner lot you do have and plus where the house is already cited you have some MEMBER LEHNERT :Two front yards. STEVE AFFELT : The extreme setbacks are actually caused by decks and patios almost at grade, eight inches above and the three feet within the property line so it's not the house itself it's doing the extreme setbacks it's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was going to be a question of mine, if you're doing so much work at the property to reduce the lot coverage why wouldn't you just have an at grade patio as opposed to a deck? STEVE AFFELT : That's the homeowners choice. I probably would prefer a deck myself, I don't particularly like hard scaped patios but that's just me. They've installed those themselves so I would assume that enjoy and preferred that over (inaudible). They are here though if you want to ask those kinds of questions, I don't want to (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, well maybe we can do that. Do you want to come to the mic? CARLA SCIARA : Good afternoon, Carla Sciara Happy New Year everyone. STEVE AFFELT : If you can remove the decks and patios to bring down the lot coverage thereby getting rid of one of the variances we're asking for. CARLA SCIARA : Sure, which deck are we referring to? 661 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT :The one that's (inaudible) cause the front of the house right now CARLA SCIARA : So, only cause everyone the front of the house is Old Orchard or the one on North Lane? Okay, so the deck that's there now you're referring to? That is coming out anyway because in order to do the foundation work etc. and it wouldn't be going back in. I think the only thing that would go back in would be a reasonable staircase with landing in order to allow you to get into the front door. If we were to put something back it would be at grade more than likely with blue stone or something along those lines just to keep it's more about the ticks than anything else so we're not always sitting in the grass or the dog not always sitting on the grass. There's a lot of deer I mean if you've been in that area, you understand it's they're everywhere. STEVE AFFELT : (inaudible) averages I'll probably with my submission (inaudible). CARLA SCIARA : I'm questioning because I know with respect to its definitely they're calling it a demolition because whatever but the majority the original home is actually staying, the kitchen, the bathroom everything else, the garage so all of those setbacks that were set by the original house they were there right so we're not changing any of that like the 3 foot and the 24 foot (inaudible) 35 etc., etc. Our intent was to just we love the house, we just want another bathroom and bedroom. We have nine siblings between us so when they visit, they can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need more than one bathroom that's for sure. CARLA SCIARA : Yes,thank you, any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, that makes sense, it sounds like an amended application to me. Anything else from the Board? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Anyone in the audience? Okay, why don't we what do you want to do? How much time do you need? STEVE AFFELT : When is your next session? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have in two weeks we have the deliberations it's not a hearing. STEVE AFFELT : I could have them before the two weeks,the average and the resubmission. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we do this, let's just adjourn to that date then and then we'll see what we get and if we're set we don't have any further questions or whatever we'll 67 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting just close it at that meeting and then we should have a decision probably at the following meeting which would be like the next public hearing in February so it's a month from now. STEVE AFFELT : If you have any more questions after the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we'll just adjourn it to another date where we can continue to talk to you. STEVE AFFELT : Sounds good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so I'm going to make having no other questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on January 23rd Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7975—STRITZLER TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So having already read the Legal Notice into the record I'm just going to make a motion to open up this application for public hearing, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? fib January 9,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, alright Anthony take it away. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Happy New Year, nice to see you guys, 2025. I'm going to start just talking about the non-complying existing structures before we get into the proposed work. It's a lot of different things kind of going on here. I do want to state that we had a Trustees site visit. They looked into the records on this accessory deck that has basically an arbor above it and it is I think 3.5 feet from the bluff, very close to the bluff. There's a record in 2000 which in hindsight I should have brought to provide to the Board but I can provide that. There's record in the F.O.I.L. in 2000, a site plan that was submitted that shows the structure was existing. The Trustees reviewed that and they agreed, we obviously have to get their approval as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about the accessory deck that's down right by the ANTHONY PORTILLO :The one that's closest to the bluff, 3.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what date was that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : What I have on record in 2000 a site plan for a Certificate of Occupancy that was provided by the Building Department and the site plan shows this structure. The owner testified to me and I'll testify to you that he did put new decking on it but when he bought the home the structure was there, he just re-decked it which is obvious cause you can see that. I'd like to provide that to that Board. I mean there really is nothing, I looked around in that area there's really not much of a variance of something of that nature so I don't really have anything saying that it was granted before. I would just say that it's been there a long time, whoever built it and whenever it was built it wasn't the owner and he just is trying to legalize everything on his property. Strange fact though, he filed for the pool and the deck and this addition in the front of the house he filed that in 2018 and the deck with an arbor was not picked up at that time by the Building Department so if he knew about it then he would have you know he said to me he would have dealt with it then but it just wasn't picked up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did we ever even discuss that deck during the last hearing? I didn't go back to the transcript or anything 6,9' January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we did. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We might need to check that. It was clearly there when we did our last site inspection. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The Trustees mentioned it as well and I guess it was like overlooked by everybody and not really looked at as not having a C.O. but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was that 2018 you said? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that's when he filed that's when the current owner filed for the pool and the deck but in 2000 there's a record of a site plan on record of this thing existing. It's been there like at least twenty-five years and prior obviously cause it does seem to be you know an older built structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The deck looks older but the pergola itself is something that looks recent, it's aluminum. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think there was a pergola and then he put in that pergola. So, the owner did do updates from what was there from what I'm understanding from him. I don't have any record of them saying it's a pergola, the site plan which I'll provide from 2000 it just calls out the decking there, it doesn't say pergola but again that paperwork back then wasn't very detailed when you look back at some of these records. I can't say the pergola was there I'm just telling you what the owner stated to me. It's pretty clear that the deck has been there since at least 2000 from that record. I'll have my office drop it off so that you guys have that. The side deck though that has basically a sauna on it which he built that and it's .3 feet from the side property is the relief we're requesting from the side property line. I think that's pretty minor; I don't think it really is obstructive to anybody being in that location you're not really on top of your neighbors or anything like that and it's a really small relief request, I think.That was built by him without a permit and he admitted that to me basically just I don't know he thought it was at grade and it didn't need a permit, his contractor told him and it's just not true because you have a sauna on it. It's partially at grade but the grade slopes so it's really not, it's above grade. Anyway, it needs a permit so that's another thing we're trying to legalize essentially. I think that's pretty minor in my opinion and again I don't think we're you know hindering with the neighbor to the east there. Now I'm getting into really the lot coverage and I think you know we are creating that variance so it is self-created I would say but I do want to bring out the fact that there is a CEHA line on this property and you know using the argument that if the CEHA line was an existing and you were allowed to use the complete property I have some numbers just to read out to the Board. Basically, we're losing about 14,000 square feet of lot because of the CEHA line. If we didn't have a CEHA line on this 70 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting property basically we would be allowed 7,458 sq. ft. of lot coverage, our request is for 5,811. Understandably with the CEHA calculation you know removing the portion of the seaward part of the lot you know we are requesting basically 5.3% overage. A lot of it I believe is created because of the CEHA line on the property, that's taking a decent amount of lot area for our calculation. I ask the Board to think about that a little bit. We are proposing a garage in the front yard which is allowed by code seeing that it's on the water. We're doing a small addition in that sort of(inaudible) area for a powder room and we're adding a walkway to the deck where the pool is. Essentially that's gonna be the bathroom off the pool that's the reason for that small addition there. I think we're like in that sort of if you were to consider the CEHA line, I think we are in that sort of median or medium where maybe you know we're not so far over and we really would be way under if we had the full lot to calculate. Hopefully that makes sense. I can answer any questions if you have any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to get Trustees again on this I take it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, we have filed with the Trustees, we have attended a preliminary site visit with them as well. The only I mean they wanted to look at that deck and arbor, they really didn't have any issue with the deck and the sauna they seemed pretty okay with that and the other items. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one in the CEHA is another story that they're going to look at that carefully. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, I don't know what's going to happen with that and you know obviously we're here first and then we'll go talk to them. They didn't give me any like response I mean I think the only positive was that they said basically the same thing the Board said today was that it was there when they originally went in '18 and they also looked at the record from 2000. So, you know that being sort of a structure that's been there you know does it create more harm to the bluff like trying to dig this thing out and remove it, is it something we just keep but I mean that's (inaudible) with the Trustees. They haven't really concluded or gave me any nod on which way that's going to go, I imagine that's going to be at the hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did we look at what the relief you're requesting is, did we enter that into side yard setback at 14 foot 7 inches, lot coverage of 25.3%, bluff setback at 79.5 feet for the "as built" deck addition and accessory deck is 3.4 feet from the top of the bluff right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, ma'am. 7:1 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's very interesting terrain, I mean that seaward deck hovers way over the property that's adjacent is much, much lower. You all see that? I think it's the shower that outdoor shower that's the side yard setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's a sauna. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a sauna structure and it's still like at the roofline of the neighboring house to the east. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's well vegetated over there I mean it's not like fully exposed to that in my opinion. I think it's really only .3 feet MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the survey/site plan you show there's a shed along that same lot line it's sort of straddling the lot line on the east side to the north closer to the water. It's not on the applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea is that it's hard to know if it's their shed or the neighbors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's probably the neighbor's shed. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's right on the lot line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Given the terrain and I forgot to go down to look at it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does really dramatically (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, he said the contractor was well it's at grade but it's not at grade. It's at grade in the front but then it's like 3 feet (inaudible) sometimes people listen to their contractors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So who's shed is this? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's not his shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're saying it belongs to the house to the east. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, that's correct. MEMBER LEHNERT :That resolves (inaudible) with the property line going through it. 7Z January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't if it's the neighbors shed I don't know how you compel a neighbor you know to remove their shed to their property only, an applicant yea. You see what I'm saying Julie? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's more on the neighbor's lot it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it is, one would assume it's theirs since it's more on their ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean from my experience it's civil right like they would have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Move it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : compel them the neighbor to move it.Just think if a fence is on your MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, maybe we can have clarification that it is in fact the neighbor's shed? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I'm positive it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that neighbor doesn't seem to have access to it and I forgot to walk down it was just so windy the day I was there I really wanted to get off the Sound. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't think I mean I know it's not his shed but yea I can MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you could and then ANTHONY PORTILLO : What do you want a statement from the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea, let's just verify who owns it and then I don't think we can do much to compel but it's something that maybe neighborly they could resolve themselves. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay, no problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Under the existing waterside deck are two very large sheds that are built under the deck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea the (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) whatever water flows through the decking is sheathed off the roof and goes to a dry well. The dry well is on the seaward side of the house, it looks like some sort of a big opening into the earth. Can you talk a little bit about that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, again my understanding is those were there and basically he uses them for bike storage but it wasn't something that he built and 73 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Honestly I'm more concerned about the roof runoff than the structure. I mean there's existing deck which covers the (inaudible). If he wants to put a shed under it maybe he needs a C of 0 on it but I don't even know. They're clearly larger than the allowable size in my opinion so maybe it does need to get a Certificate of Occupancy but the deck extends closer to the Sound. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'd have to go back and look at when the deck was built and what was approved at the time when the deck was built because that rear deck was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's seems like it was there forever and a day, this house is like from the fifties. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea that's what I mean, I'm going to have to look back and F.O.I.L. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just from a sort of more environmental maybe it's more of a concern for the Trustees,the dry well cause that looks like it's a new dry well. ANTHONY PORTILLO : They brought up that whatever they approve we would have to verify that everything is connected to dry wells because it's hard to tell what is and what isn't. They're going to make us put dry wells in everywhere but I actually propose them. If I didn't, they're going to be, we have one for the garage that we're proposing. Based on my site visit with Trustees they want all the entire home has to come down into dry wells so I will be doing a rain collection calculation and providing proper dry wells. It's not that bad actually with the ground water here so I think we (inaudible) pretty decent levels. That's definitely going to be something that I have to do for Trustees, it was already brought up during the site visit. In regards to those sheds though Nick, I would say that I'd like to look at the C.O. then, if there was anything built there at the time of that deck being built. It does to me seem like material wise it looks like it was built around the same time so I'm guessing these things were just part of when the deck was built. Whether it was properly documented at the time the deck was built or not I'm not a hundred percent sure but it doesn't look like it was something built after the fact just based on the age of the wood and so on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well let's see what else, it's a very big deck that's for sure. Boy was it windy and cold. I have to say it's a very attractive little deck in the CEHA and you get great views of the Sound but it's in the coastal erosion hazard zone and it's not a good place for structures that's for sure. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, that line does move over time so it wasn't when it was built, can't say I know it is now obviously never permitted. 74 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still (inaudible) on the top of the bluff, it's a well vegetated bluff. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The crazy part and again if you go back to C.O's from like 2000 it's never really clear and documented in work what they're approving. Like the C.O. says this is approved and then all the documents that are attached to that C.O. are normally acceptable or let's say under that C.O. so I didn't understand why this wouldn't have been under that C.O. because it is on you know the site plan that was in that F.O.I.L. So, it doesn't clearly state it that it is and that's basically why it's being brought up. I was a little confused why you know cause it was something when I was saw it in the 2000 C.O. I assumed that it was already C.O'd because it doesn't clearly say anything about what they're C.O'ing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even before the CEHA that close to the top of the bluff would have been an issue. ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent, I'm just saying that if had a C.O. I wouldn't be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) things get you know we don't always have complete records and we don't have clear records and it's just ANTHONY PORTILLO : I guess what I'm saying is when I first saw it which I recognized it that saw the C.O. in 2000 with the structure there and then I assumed that it wasn't brought up and when he filed cause I asked him about it that the Building Department determined it to be C.O'd in 2000. Now it's coming up now during this filing so my point is, I just didn't have any attention to it until we went to the Building Department cause we knew we needed these other variances and then that was brought up. That's all I'm getting at. I did my due diligence is what I'm saying and it ended up backfiring a little bit because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony, can the lot coverage actually be reduced perhaps the garage scaled back instead of having so many attached storage rooms? Can some decking be removed, anything to bring that 25.3 down to a more comfortable level? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's fair that we could look at the garage structure possibly. mean I don't know how much smaller I guess some of the storage spaces. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The storage room sort of looks even like a pool house, it's not defined as such but it has a closet with like what could be a bathroom perhaps, kind of far away from the pool ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, no that storage area is basically he just wants to put like all his garbage in there and everything. 751 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's an area there marked for refuse like on the opposite side. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea he's got the refuse there but he says he's always got like a bunch of boxes I don't know he just says he wants bigger areas for storage. Listen, I think it's a fair question and I think maybe I can talk to him about it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it looks like it could be a ,pool house that you know runs the width of the garage because of the way the pool is built with the (inaudible) with the waterfall edging, you're not going to use it as a pool house? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh no, I don't think that's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't want to say that's something that could be locked off but that certainly would reduce the lot coverage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean it's like bikes and he said he's going to put like his big cardboard boxes that he gets from Amazon before they go out. The refuse area would be garbage cans. He had some reasoning behind the storage space that he needed but I can definitely discuss that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The attic space also in the garage is also labeled as unfinished, unheated storage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh the attic space? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, I mean there's no door I don't it's not going to be a large space up there. We have three-foot knee walls and then there's no dormers or anything. I think it's just again probably storage. He doesn't have a lot in the house stored but it's kind of like the house,you step up and then you step down and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the bedrooms are actually in the basement. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea it's not like there's much storage in the house is what I'm saying. He plans on using all that for storage. That's why there's no dormers, he's not intending it to be something in the future. The look of the garage was really played off of the addition MEMBER PLANAMENTO : the game room. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea so all that glass is really just to kind of keep the same vernacular of what's going on you know what I mean it's not (inaudible). To your point I think it's fair to talk about it. 76 January 9,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there's an original house here it's facing the Sound, this is the addition here so this image is the game room. You have to walk along the outside of that building cause the front door which is on the Sound so this sticks out here and then this faces the pool and then they want to build a garage to have a similar look. ANTHONY PORTILLO : To further talk about why we're not making a bathroom in that garage for that's the reason we're adding that bathroom in the corner there, that's going to be used for the pool bathroom basically. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the deck? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The one that we're adding to that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To the house. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, exactly there. That is to become a bathroom off the pool essentially. So, I don't think there's any intention to put a half bathroom in the garage or any of that kind of stuff. I think it's just bike storage, more storage cause the house just doesn't really have a basement or anything. You don't have much of an attic in the house or anything like that. I don't think he'll be coming here for like an accessory apartment application or anything if that's a concern. I can talk to him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to wait three years anyway. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can talk to him, I don't know how much maybe I can get 100 sq. ft. I don't know how much I can really shave off of it, it's probably not going to be much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, have a look and see wherever you can possibly just you know reduce the degree of variance relief. Sometimes you know you remove something and it's such a small gain that you wonder MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's why I said it's nominal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : if it's punitive. You can at least look into it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's fair. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a lot of decking there, there's a lot of ANTHONY PORTILLO : You mean the decking in the front? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All the decking. 77 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea but I think the problem with the front it kind of like disassemble that it would be very CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pool and everything else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's the question you know I think to your point earlier you mention that for the lot size had it been buildable land you know whatever relief if any would be nominal to what we're asking, or what you're asking given the fact that there's non- buildable a large non-buildable portion of this lot given the (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct, creating this sort of hardship. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think they're very creative with the space that they have. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's not a huge house and you know like I said not a lot of storage. I mean whoever designed the pool area and the deck and I don't know how that came about to be that size but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And again, if the pool is at grade that wouldn't necessarily count, here because of the terrain they didn't have a choice. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean I would say I'll go back and speak to him and maybe we can look at a smaller garage but I don't know how much it's really going to come down from that but I can talk to him. Should we table then or adjourn or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can adjourn to the Special Meeting if you want and see if a couple of weeks gives you time to just figure out what your final answer is. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we'll take it from there. We'll put it on for potential close and see what we come up with. Is that alright with the Board? Okay, so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this meeting to the Special Meeting on January 23rd. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 7 . January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll also hand in that 2000 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, whatever other documents we talked about that you can submit that would be good. HEARING#7927SE &7953—NORTH ROAD HOTEL, LLC, HOTEL MORAINE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to adjourn North Road Hotel. At the applicant's request we have they're proposing an adjournment to April 3rd. So, I'm going to make a motion that both North Road Hotel, LLC. Hotel Moraine #7927SE and #7953 be adjourned to the public hearings on April 3, 2025, so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting of the Board of Appeals. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in'favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, please shut down the recording. 79 January 9, 2025 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :January 23, 2025 so